Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL (By Order)

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Schools (Curriculum)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions she has had with local education authorities on expansion of schools' curricula into new subjects.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster-General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): None, Sir. I have, however, invited local education authorities to review and report on their arrangements for the school curriculum, including ways of promoting an appropriate balance between the basic skills and other curricular areas.

Mr. Dykes: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. In the general debate about the desirability of introducing new subjects from time to time, does the right hon. Lady agree that, by contrast, there is very great anxiety amongst parents, employers and the children themselves

that they should have a proper grounding in the three Rs plus the fourth R, which is religious instruction? What does the Secretary of State intend to do to promote those desirable objectives as well as anything else?

Mrs. Williams: In the Green Paper we have made it clear that we have put very great emphasis on the achievement of basic literacy and numeracy. My Assessment of Performance Unit has sent out a consultative document about the first set of questions on the assessment of achievement in mathematics. As for religious instruction, I have made it clear that I believe that religious education should remain a compulsory part of the curriculum.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Has not my right hon. Friend noticed that even the Conservative Party is concerned about too narrow a school curriculum and that it is concerned, too, about political illiteracy in schools? Can we hear a little less about the Gradgrind regime of the nineteenth century and give greater consideration to a balanced curriculum?

Mrs. Williams: It is very important to have a balanced curriculum. It is becoming more and more widely accepted that one aspect of that curriculum needs to be the education of children in the society of which they are a part, and not least in the political democracy to which they belong.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Does the Minister recall that in June last year she or her junior Minister—I cannot remember which—expressed some sympathy with my suggestion that elementary law and commercial practice should be taught in our schools? As these subjects will affect children for the rest of their lives in one way or another, when she has discussions will she urge and encourage the inclusion of these subjects even at elementary level in our State schools?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will, I think, accept that, at least in some general studies courses, there is reference to current law, not least to law of the sort that will affect children as citizens. He illustrates the dilemma of all Secretaries of State for Education that there are always far more subjects that ought to be contained in the curriculum than can be contained in it. It is important


that we should have as far as possible a sense of priority.

Parental Choice

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is in a position to announce when she intends to introduce legislation to resolve the difficulties which arise at present over parental choice of schools.

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce legislation to increase parental choice of schools.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I intend to introduce legislation on school admissions arrangements when the parliamentary timetable permits.

Mr. Knox: Why has there been so much delay in introducing this legislation? Will the Minister give an assurance that the legislation that she eventually introduces will extend to parents the maximum possible freedom of choice?

Mrs. Williams: There has not been delay. In the debate on the Loyal Address on 4th November 1977, I made it clear that if there was time this Session a Bill would be introduced but I also indicated that, in view of the legislation that was to be taken this Session, it might not be possible to do so. That remains the position.

Mr. Budgen: Surely there is now time to introduce a short Bill amending Section 76 of the Education Act 1944 and setting out a parent's right to choose his child's school.

Mrs. Williams: The matter is more complicated than that. Amendments would be required to Sections 37 and 68 of the Education Act 1944 as well as to Section 76. In addition, it is clear that we shall have to bring in legislation concerning the planned operating capacity of schools, and at a time when rolls are falling rapidly.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it were left to the Conservatives, 80 per cent. of parents would have no choice whatsoever as to where their children went to school, as used to be the case? Even under present legislation there is more choice in the matter than there has ever been in history.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the Conservative Party wants is elitism, to go back to what happened previously and give it special favours?

Mrs. Williams: I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend in that only one school in five even had a sixth form under the selective system, and the great majority of children had no opportunity to continue their studies beyond compulsory age. In my view, however, what we want is to permit parents to express their preferences about schools within the comprehensive system. I do not accept that the proper way is by selection, as the Conservative Party has indicated.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the right hon. Lady agree that not only do we need legislation governing how parents express their choice when their child reaches the age of 11 but that it is important that local education authorities should find out parents' wishes while their children are still in the early years at primary schools, so that the variety of comprehensive or secondary schools can be adjusted to match more accurately what parents want, rather than forcing them to make a choice three or four months before their child transfers?

Mrs. Williams: I follow what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. The Government have said that parents should be fully informed at all stages about schools, what they offer and the courses available in them. Last November the Government issued a circular asking schools to provide information. I believe that that was the first time it had been done under any Administration.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many parents and their children freedom of choice is restricted by economic circumstances? Before she moves in the direction requested by the Opposition, will she deal with those Tory authorities which refuse to introduce effective and cheap school transport?

Mrs. Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his subtlety in asking a supplementary question about school transport on this Question. He will be aware that the Government have put forward proposals for flat-rate school transport fares which would be fair across the board to local authorities. We are still waiting


for their response. May I make it quite clear that, in my view, the expression of parental wishes must be taken alongside the comprehensive principle, the need to operate schools efficiently and the need to make sure that we have a planned operating capacity for schools.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whilst I sympathise with the right hon. Lady on the defeat she is reported to have sustained in this matter at the hands of the Secretary of State for Energy and his relations, may I ask her to make it quite plain that if she ever manages to get a Bill past Cerberus she will have no intention, under the pretext of rationalising the law, of doing away with the limited amount of parental choice that parents have under present legislation?

Mrs. Williams: I am sure, in view of the hon. Gentleman's high moral qualities, that he would not wish to associate himself with some of the wilder suggestions which appear in the Press. Therefore, I refer him to my speech on 4th November 1977, in the debate on the Loyal Address, when I said:
We believe that parents should be given a proper opportunity to express a preference for a school and to have that preference taken fully into account, along with all the other relevant factors such as the need for local authorities, as school rolls fall, to be able to deploy their resources effectively, to run an efficient education service, and, in the case of secondary schools, to operate a satisfactory comprehensive system".—[Official Report, 4th November 1977; Vol. 938, c.170.]
I stand by every word I said in the House on 4th November. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his insinuations.

Disabled Children

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the education facilities for disabled children.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend will continue to seek ways of improving the quality of special education.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Teachers has said that the resources and facilities for the education of children in hospital are appallingly inadequate? Therefore, will

she consult the Department of Health and Social Security to see what can be done to remedy this difficult problem of children's education being damaged in hospital?

Miss Jackson: I am aware of the report recently published by the NUT. Like my hon. Friend, I consider it to be a good and useful piece of work. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Warnock Committee is sitting, and we hope that it will report later this year. It is also considering the question of hospital special schools. We shall look at the NUT report in the light of the Warnock Report and hope to make some addition to the progress made in recent years in providing education for children in hospitals.

Mr. Welsh: Is the hon. Lady aware of the radio link method of teaching deaf children? What steps is she taking to extend its use?

Miss Jackson: I am aware that there are a variety of methods of teaching deaf children. I am not familiar with the one the hon. Gentleman quotes, but if he will write to me about its particular values I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Ashton: Will my hon. Friend look into the refusal by Nottinghamshire County Council to provide taxis for at least one mentally handicapped child? It has put him into a mental hospital instead, because it is too mean to provide taxis.

Miss Jackson: If my hon. Friend will write to me about that case, I shall consider it. But there are children who are perhaps better provided for in hospital. Certainly, many of the good schools that exist in association with hospitals exist where there are hospitals dealing with mentally handicapped children. I should not wish to leap to conclusions about a particular case without knowing the details.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a need for a great deal of flexibility in interpreting the regulations, as it is not always possible clearly to define the dividing line between different categories?

Miss Jackson: Yes, Sir. It would be hard to disagree with that. One of the principal problems affecting hospital schools and hospital teaching is that so


many children are in hospitals for a very brief time and that those who are in for a sustained period have such a variety of problems to cope with.

Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that disabled children possibly more than other children need the support and sustenance of their home and as far as possible should be educated not at boarding schools but at day schools? Is she aware that in my constituency, in Tamworth, many children are being forced to board at Needwood School for the Deaf, about 15 miles away, when both parents and children would like the Staffordshire Education Committee to provide the children with daily transport to and from the school?

Miss Jackson: I accept my hon. Friend's case that this is a particularly difficult aspect of providing education for handicapped children. It would certainly always be our view that handicapped children should remain as closely as possible in touch with their homes and as much as possible in touch with children in other ordinary schools. But undoubtedly some authorities face problems at present in providing adequate education for the numbers of children involved. Sadly, some of them have decided on expenditure grounds, as my hon. Friend says, not to make available provision which perhaps has been available in the past. We regret this.

Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Lady say anything about the supply of peripatetic teachers for this purpose, and what she is doing to encourage teachers to take up this type of teaching?

Miss Jackson: As a general rule, the supply of peripatetic teachers is a little hard to assess because it depends on the number of teachers that authorities are prepared to keep on their books. It is, therefore, information that they will have rather than information that is likely to be easily available to us. There is no question but that we are anxious to encourage as many teachers as possible, whether peripatetic or permanent, to work with children with these difficulties. Although it is very difficult, it is rewarding work for those involved.

Special Schools (Unqualified Teachers)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have been made to her by the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers about the employment of unqualified teachers in special schools; what assurances she gave in reply; and if she will make a statement.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has received representations from the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers about the continued employment of two unqualified teachers in special schools under Regulation 16A(2) of the Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations 1959. She has informed him that the local education authority concerned has now advertised for qualified teachers suitable to replace them and that she will be keeping a close watch on the matter. I am not aware of a comparable situation in any other locality.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Bexley claims that it is empowered to employ unqualified teachers to teach in its special school under the 1959 regulations concerning special schools? Is she further aware that to dismiss them would encourage those who are dismissed to appeal to an industrial tribunal on the ground of wrongful dismissal? Will she make a statement about it?

Miss Jackson: I am aware that the London borough of Bexley has held this view in the past, but it has now discarded it and has reached the view that it is not so empowered to employ these teachers. It is taking steps to advertise the posts so that qualified people may take them up. This is a difficult situation. As I understand it, the problem has been that these teachers had open-ended contracts as opposed to the recommendation of my Department for fixed-term contracts. It is a complicated matter, but it is now about to be resolved.

Mr. Marten: Does the hon. Lady recognise that some unqualified teachers are perfectly adequate to teach? Will she look back to the debates in 1966,


at which time the National Union of Teachers tried to get rid of all unqualified teachers in primary schools? At that time her predecessor, now Lord Glenamara, very wisely allowed them to stay on. Many of them are very good.

Miss Jackson: I accept that many such teachers have been very helpful to schools in the past. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that although, at the time he mentioned, it was accepted that many such teachers were employed in schools and doing a good job, it was agreed that the arrangements for allowing them to stay should be comparatively short term, that they should, when possible, be replaced by qualified teachers, and that the teachers who found themselves in those circumstances should be encouraged to seek qualifications. That, I understand, has been the position in this case.

Advisory Board for Research Councils

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the Advisory Board for Research Councils has had its budget reduced for the two years after 1979.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: So far from reducing the science budget, the recent public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 7049, increased it by £4 million in each year from 1978–79 above the level projected a year ago in Cmnd. 6721. The further special addition of £4·5 million for capital expenditure which has been made in 1978–79 explains why the figure for that year is higher than the figures for 1980–81 and 1981–82.

Mr. Macfarlane: Is not the Secretary of State aware that those statistics for the ensuing two years from now will only take care of the rate of inflation? I draw to her attention the fact that there is a very serious fall in the morale of those who work in the science research councils. They are also concerned that expenditure has dropped over the past four years in real terms. At a time when the country should be expecting more wealth from North Sea oil revenue, from 1980–81 onwards, should not some of the profit from the North Sea be used to increase expenditure in the science area?

Mrs. Williams: No, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. This is the first increase in real terms. If the hon. Gentleman will cease shaking his finger, I will tell him the facts. The year 1978–79 reflects the first increase in real terms in the past four years. That increase will continue onwards. What the hon. Gentleman has not allowed for is that next year's budget reflects the emergency construction programme, and I cannot say what the capital programme will be in the continuing years. In revenue terms there has been a turn-up, allowing for the effects of inflation.
I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his question. I believe that we get very good value for money from our research councils and could usefully spend rather more in this area.

Mr. Hooley: But how far do these increases simply compensate for the extra payments across the exchanges to international bodies which resulted from the decline in the value of sterling?

Mrs. Williams: In 1977–78 that was true, in the sense that the fall in the value of sterling increased the real proportion which had to go to international subscriptions, but in the light of the improved performance of sterling, for which the Government take credit, I do not believe that that will be the case in the coming budget, to which the question is addressed.

Arts Council

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she intends to announce the Arts Council's grant for 1978–79; and what representations she has received about the need to improve Arts Council support.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Subject to parliamentary approval, the grant-in-aid for 1978–79 will be £49 million. As is the usual practice, details will be announced when the Supply Estimates are presented to Parliament. The increase of £7·3 million over the current year's total takes account of the Arts Council's case for a substantial increase and of the current financial restraints.

Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for her reply, but is she aware that the increase she has


announced is not sufficient to take account of the rate of inflation that the arts have experienced, which has been agreed at 21 per cent.? Will she undertake to put further pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the inflation rate is met and that over and above that there will be room for expansion? The present amount allows no room for expansion over and above the inflation rate.

Mrs. Williams: I recognise my hon. Friend's championship of the arts, but I think many hon. Members will recognise that a 17½ per cent. increase in the arts budget is not bad going against the comparative rate of inflation.

Mr. Freud: Is the Secretary of State aware of the disservice occasioned to the arts by the late announcement of the grant-in-aid? Is she further aware of the distress that this causes to provincial repertory theatres and to the national operatic companies, which would dearly like to have known before this date what they could expect?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman might have been a little more generous, because this is the earliest date at which the arts budget has been declared for many years. I am sure that it would be helpful to declare it yet earlier, but I hope that he will give the Government some credit for making the announcement at the earliest date yet.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the extent to which the provinces, as distinct from Greater London and the cities, get their fair share of touring theatre, which is grant-aided by the Arts Council? If she is not so satisfied—and I am not satisfied—will she take steps to put that position right?

Mrs. Williams: I think it is worth saying that there has been a steady shift towards regional support for the arts, although I recognise that many hon. Members would like it to go further. It is fair to put on record that there has been a shift proportionately to areas outside the capital, and I am all in favour of that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I support very strongly what was said by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who has made such an important contribution to our discussion of the arts

in this House. I also, in an ecumenical mood, support the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) on the question of timing, because I believe that his point was a valid one.
Will the Secretary of State consider in her Department going back to a modified triennial system of support for the arts, allowing for the higher rate of inflation that we have had in recent years?

Mrs. Williams: I can see that there is a strong argument for what the hon. Gentleman suggested in the second part of his question, but he will recognise that we have not waited for the Estimates to be presented to Parliament before making an overall statement about the arts budget. There are difficulties in giving detailed statements when this budget, like so many others, is tied to the Supply Estimates. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to speak to his own party on this matter, and I shall be happy to speak to mine about it.

Colleges (Closure)

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is now satisfied that all colleges and departments of education scheduled for closure will be retained for other educational purposes.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): As I explained to my hon. Friend in reply to his Question on 30th November, it is for the individual maintaining authorities and voluntary bodies to determine the future of premises which become available in due course, and lengthy negotiations are often involved. To date, alternative educational use is firmly in prospect for 15 colleges or annexes and parts of three other colleges. Most of the remainder are as yet undecided.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he accept that there is absolutely no cause for complacency in the present position? Is there nothing which could be done by the Department of Education and Science to convince local authorities of the necessity of retaining educational capital for educational purposes rather than selling it off to make a quick buck for some ratepayers?

Mr. Oakes: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of a further 17 colleges, six parts of five others and one annexe yet to be decided, 13 are being considered for other educational purposes. Therefore most educational authorities are doing as he suggests. However, we shall be writing to education authorities who have redundant colleges, pointing out the strong hope of my Department that they will be retained for educational use.

Mr. Roderick: In view of the changing economic climate which we are led to expect by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will my hon. Friend reconsider the closure programme so that we may have a real breakthrough in the teacher supply situation and have reduced class sizes on a scale that we have never known before?

Mr. Oakes: I do not think so. The House considered this matter after long negotiations last summer. To reopen the question would do a great disservice to higher education.

Correspondence Courses

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her policy on correspondence courses.

Mr. Oakes: Well-run correspondence courses can play a useful part in the education system as a whole. The Council for the Accreditation of Correspondence Courses, which receives an annual grant from my Department, plays an important part in encouraging the maintenance and improvement of educational standards.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister aware of the cost-effectiveness of these courses? Is he satisfied that local education authorities are using their full powers under the 1944 Education Act to make discretionary grants to students using these courses?

Mr. Oakes: As the hon. Gentleman has said, local education authorities have these powers. I hope that they will consider applications from students on their merits. But I do not think it would be appropriate for me to offer them any general policy guidance on the matter. They are discretionary awards, and this is a matter for the local education authorities.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that Open University fees, which are linked to correspondence courses, are now exorbitantly high? A substantial number of disabled people who could obtain education are being denied the opportunity because of the high charges now being imposed by the Open University. What action will he take about this?

Mr. Oakes: Unfortunately Open University fees, along with other fees, had to be increased because of the economic situation. I am not aware that substantial numbers of people are being turned away for this reason. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I shall look into the matter. There may be some cases where the fee is such that the person concerned cannot afford the course.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that many schools find it difficult to cope with gifted children within the ordinary school situation? Will he give consideration to the facilities of the Open University being used by gifted children within the school situation, because often the original secondary school curriculum runs out and these children have nothing to do between finishing the course and going on to university?

Mr. Oakes: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered a similar Question only last month. I would point out that the Open University is for post-school studies, not for school studies.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of extending the Open University to lower levels of education so that it can take up correspondence courses to deal with questions of adult literacy? In allocating the fourth television channel, we might think of using it as an educational medium.

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend is talking about another matter—open colleges. We are experimenting with this and looking at it. I remind the House that the Question relates to correspondence colleges, which are independent institutions.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Minister aware that one of the problems about discretionary grants in both Labour and Conservative authorities is that money is not


being given to people for these correspondence courses? I believe that 5,000 people are doing them. Since these courses are the most cost-effective, when discretionary grants are considered can the question of mandatory grants to certain correspondence courses and the Open University be included?

Mr. Oakes: In the last rate support grant we tried to improve the amount of money available—it was a small amount but nevertheless an increase—for discretionary grants. At this stage, I do not think that there would be any question of extending mandatory grants to correspondence courses.

Technical Skills

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the teaching of technical skills in secondary schools.

Mr. Oakes: Considerable attention is given by secondary schools to the teaching of technical skills, but there is still room for improvement. Twelve new courses for retraining existing teachers as specialists in craft, design and technology were started during 1977.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not alarming that employers have to say to new entrants that they should forget all that they have learnt in school? Is there not some merit in considering the teaching of technical subjects from a more centralised basis within a given area and in conditions more akin to the conditions of the workplace?

Mr. Oakes: That is indeed alarming. I do not know whether I would agree with the school or the employer when a statement like that is made. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that technical skills are as important as academic skills. I also agree that sometimes sufficient emphasis is not given to the youngsters who may make and repair things with their hands as distinct from the person who uses his mind.

Mr. Spearing: Apart from the unsatisfactory situation of skills for teaching technical subjects, does my hon. Friend agree that the building regulations specifying sizes of workshops in schools are not realistic? Will he look at this so that the advice which he receives can be assessed?

Mr. Oakes: I was not aware of that, but I shall have a look at it.

Dr. Boyson: Since the great debate referred to industrial experience among teachers, will the Minister particularly bear in mind that, as well as technical teaching in schools, some outside employment is particularly important if the boys are to have confidence in the teachers?

Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is important. As I have pointed out to the House, it is a shortage subject and new courses are being provided for an additional 280 teachers, particularly those who have industrial skills.

Teachers

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many qualified teachers who left college in the past three years (a) are not employed in teaching and (b) are unemployed.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I regret that this information is not available. However, in December 1977 10,513 people were registered with the Department of Employment as unemployed and seeking school teaching posts. This represents just under 2 per cent. of the teacher force in England and Wales.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our aim, and apparently the aim of the Conservative Party, is to make education much better? Some months ago, in answer to one of my hon. Friends, it was pointed out that we would require an extra 55,000 teachers in order to cater for classes if they were brought down to 30, which is a reasonably manageable size? Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to do something in this direction, because the number of teachers who are unemployed are ready to teach? That would inevitably improve the whole quality of education and—dare I say it?—stop some of the nonsensical criticisms that are coming from the Conservative Party.

Mrs. Williams: Not only would I be pleased to do that, but I have already taken steps in that direction. In the rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 we have provided for the employment of 1,000 additional teachers in deprived


areas, 3,500 additional teachers to allow in-service and induction training to expand, 6,800 additional teachers to offset the effects of the falling schools rolls and, in addition, special courses in shortage subjects amounting to 1,000 places. That is a total of more than 12,000 additional posts for teachers. I do not think it is a bad start, and I hope that my hon. Friend will say so.

Mr. Forman: I acknowledge the personal disappointment of those who have been trained to teach and who find themselves without a job. None the less, does the Secretary of State agree that the important thing is to raise the quality of education and perhaps eventually move towards a graduate teaching profession? Is that not much more important than the sort of vague aspirations of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)?

Mrs. Williams: That is our policy. In 1979 the entry to teaching will be all-graduate, with the exception of some mature teachers and some from ethnic minorities whom we believe have special contributions to make, especially in the inner cities. I am pleased to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that this year, for the first time in all our schools, there will be the beginning of regular structured induction courses for all professional teachers.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of how Tory education committees on local authorities have responded to the additional teaching posts that she has mentioned, because the Tory County Council of Avon has made it quite clear that with regard to further education it has no intention of making any further appointments?

Mrs. Williams: I take my hon. Friend's point. I have to say that we do not yet know for certain because, as he will know, education budgets are at present being drawn up. I should like to underline the point he makes that we have now made provision for more than 11,000 new teaching posts and that these have been agreed with the local authorities. We shall now hope to see, in practice on the ground, those additional teachers actually employed in the classrooms.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that some of those who have not

found jobs in teaching over the past two years are among the best products of colleges and that the profession will be the loser if two whole years of good teachers have been missed from its intake? Is she satisfied that she has done enough raiding of the funds of the Department of Employment for special schemes which could have helped in this?

Mrs. Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that some excellent young people are coming out of colleges of education with a very high motivation for teaching. Taking up the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are looking at the possibility of the continuation of these special crash courses in shortage subjects. I shall bear in mind what he said.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Although the Opposition welcome the Government's programme for in-service training in the context of this very serious teacher unemployment, which surely is nearer 30,000 than 10,000 since many married women do not register for unemployment benefit, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady is considering taking powers to ensure that allocations for in-service training at the local level are spent on that purpose?

Mrs. Williams: Taking up the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think he will find it difficult to sustain the figure of 30,000. We have no evidence that that is right, unless we count everyone trained as a teacher who may be working in, say youth service, further education and so on. But that is not our evidence.
Dealing with the second part of the hon Gentleman's question, I could not sympathise and agree more with the implication behind what he said. However, local authorities are suspicious of specific grants. Therefore, we are trying to get an agreement with them based upon good will on both sides that the money will be spent on in-service training, which is vital to improve standards of education.

Buildings (Insulation)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of educational buildings now meet the standards recommended in the Department's Building Bulletin 55 "Energy Conservation in Educational Buildings".

Miss Margaret Jackson: This information is not available, but the proportion is likely to be small. A recent sample survey of 15 local authorities showed that in the design of new educational buildings more than half the authorities provided roofs and over one-quarter provided walls with a standard of insulation at or above that recommended in the bulletin.

Mr. Rost: Does the hon. Lady accept that the rising price of fuel means that better insulation is highly cost-effective and that it would save the taxpayer many millions of pounds in running costs if all school buildings came up to the recommended standards? How long will this programme take?

Miss Jackson: Not only do I accept it, we have made money available under the energy conservation programme—£8 million in 1978–79 and £17 million for each of the three years after that—for this very purpose. In Oxfordshire, where an experiment has been running between my Department and two secondary schools, one of the schools has saved 12 per cent. in a year on its energy bill and the other has saved 29 per cent. I recommend to other local authorities that they study the examples of Oxfordshire and Warwickshire which are involved in joint projects with their schools and offering to share half of the savings on energy with the schools involved.

School Meals

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates are available of the number of children additionally entitled to school meals following recent changes in entitlement conditions; and what proportion of these additional children is taking school meals.

Miss Margaret Jackson: About ½ million more pupils were expected to be taking free meals as a result of the recent changes in entitlement. The numbers now taking free meals will not be known until the results of the January census are available.

Mr. Roberts: Although we all approve of increasing the number of children entitled to free meals, may I ask whether my hon. Friend accepts that too small a proportion of those entitled actually

take up the meals? Does she agree, therefore, that the only real answer is to keep down the prices of school meals and, if possible, in view of the very serious fall-off in the number taking them, consider decreasing again the price of these school meals?

Miss Jackson: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Until 100 per cent. of the people entitled to free meals claim them, we shall not be satisfied and shall continue to attempt to increase the number. However, although, like my hon. Friend, we are aware of the concern about the level of the cost of school meals, I cannot consider that we would contemplate going back on the increase at this stage.

Mr. McCrindle: What is the actual value of the school meal at the latest date for which figures are available?

Miss Jackson: The average cost of the school meal over the country as a whole is 49p. Its value is very considerable in that it offers children a substantial meal in the middle of the day.

Higher Education Students

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has received any substantial evidence that the quality of students entering higher education is unsatisfactory or, despite increased numbers, below that of such students in the past.

Mr. Oakes: No. Over the past few years there has been little change in the A-level performance of students entering university courses and CNAA first degree courses, but I appreciate there is some concern about aspects of mathematical education which some students have received.

Mr. Hardy: Is not that answer generally reassuring, not least because it sheds necessary light upon the immoderate and ill-informed carping of the latter-day Squeers on the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Oakes: I agree with my hon. Friend. For further illustration, the University Grants Committee has said that there is no decline in the general level of intellectual ability and enthusiasm amongst students. Between 1971 and 1976, the overall proportion of first-and


upper second-class CNAA honours degrees increased from 24 per cent. to 28·7 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14th February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Hordern: Will the Prime Minister ask Mr. Moss Evans to come to see him this afternoon and talk to him about his radio interview this morning? In view of the importance of the social contract and of the industrial strategy, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to Ford and to every other company whether they should take advice of Mr. Moss Evans or that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: I did not hear the interview, and I shall not be inviting Mr. Evans to come to see me.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend find time to urge the Leader of the Opposition to devote a Supply Day debate to the subject of immigration? Does he believe that this would allow the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) further to expose the weasel words of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on immigration and enable her to rebut the charge that she is more anxious to exploit the fears and uncertainties of some people on immigration than to come here to defend and explain her policies on immigration?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there is a Supply Day likely to be available next week and also that a further Supply Day will be available in the following week. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss this matter, therefore, if the Opposition wish to raise it.
If I may express a view, I hope that the Opposition will do so because, as I said a week ago, I am anxious that there should be, if possible, a national approach to this problem, which can

otherwise distort our community with hatred.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that we shall take a Supply Day when we wish and not at the goading of Government supporters? Meantime, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the purpose of the 1971 Immigration Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) introduced and which I supported, was to end further large-scale immigration and to permit future immigration only in strictly defined cases? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he and his party voted against that Bill on Second Reading not merely once but three times? Is he aware that I support the intention of that Act? He did not, and he does not. What is his intention?

The Prime Minister: I recall a number of these matters because I happened to be leading for the Opposition at the time. I well recall the argument that took place about patriality, upon which there was a great difference which was thrashed out in Committee, some times overnight, between the Opposition and the Government, and it had nothing to do with immigration as such. But I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is for her to choose when she will debate this matter, and it is only for me to indicate that there are opportunities available. As the Government have very firm principles on this matter, I hope that the Opposition will choose to debate it soon. But I repeat my request that we should, if possible, try to evolve a national approach to this issue.

Mrs. Thatcher: We did not evolve a national approach when the legislation was before the House. Do I understand from the Prime Minister's reply that he now supports an Act which at the time he opposed vigorously?

The Prime Minister: Since 1974—that is, for four years—the Government have been operating under the 1971 Act, which was drawn up, of course, by the previous Cabinet and introduced by the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chiping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). We have also been operating under the Conservative rules which derive from the Act in 1973.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with it?

The Prime Minister: We are administering it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) does not understand that. I hope that the Opposition understand that what is taking place on immigration today takes place under their Act and their rules and that it is now the law of the country.
I make a proposal—[Interruption.] I try to deal only with adult questions, not infantile questions. What I am about to say will not be accepted by the Opposition, but I should like to put it, and we shall see.
If the Opposition are as concerned about trying to avoid hatred and tension in our society as the right hon. Lady said they were last Sunday, let me make this proposition, which I shall think out and discuss with her. Why do not the leaders of the three parties sit down together with the Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary and, if the right hon. Lady wishes, the former Home Secretary whose Act it was and see whether we can evolve a national approach which will avoid racialism, distortion and hatred which will otherwise enter our affairs? I make that offer to the right hon. Lady. I am willing to discuss it and sit down with her, recognising that each of us has very firm principles. However, the national unity of the country is more important than either of these.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister now answer the Question? Does he now support the intent—

Mr. Faulds: Will the Leader of the Opposition answer the Prime Minister's suggestion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) really must control himself.

Mr. Faulds: She must answer the Prime Minister's proposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Warley, East continues, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister now support the intention of the Act to which he led the opposition?

The Prime Minister: I divide my answer into two parts. The general intention of the Immigration Act has always been supported. However, on the issue of

patriality there has always been a difference between us, and I understand that the Opposition themselves are now dissatisfied with the way in which it is working and that that is why they are calling for a review of future citizenship of this country. That is a clear answer to the Leader of the Opposition.
Would she care to think about my suggestion? I do not ask for a reply now, because I know that it is an important matter. Perhaps she could let me have an answer in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECT COMMITTEES (MINISTERIAL WITNESSES)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister what guidelines he offers to his ministerial colleagues on the type and extent of information which they may provide when appearing before parliamentary Select Committees.

The Prime Minister: Ministers follow the conventional practice in this matter.

Mr. Moonman: In view of the recent tensions between Select Committees and members of the Government about certain key witnesses, will the Prime Minister define rather more clearly the relationship and the amount of information that can be given by Ministers to Members of Parliament? Does he think that Select Committees are a waste of time?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that Select Committees are a waste of time. They can do a very useful job, provided that the working assumptions as to the responsibilities of Select Committees and the Government are observed. The general understanding is that Ministers should always observe them and should be as helpful as possible to Select Committees in trying to satisfy their requests for information. It is well known to both sides that there are difficulties from time to time about this in matters of commercial interest. This has arisen because of a recent dispute; I shall not pronounce on that now. Generally speaking, Ministers know that when they go before Select Committees they go to give all the help they can.

Mr. Blaker: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the book "The Pencourt File"? Is he aware that there are serious allegations in that book against the Secretary of State for Social


Services, acting in his official capacity—namely that the Secretary of State used his influence in 1976 to conceal the existence of a file on Mr. Norman Scott when there is clear evidence that such a file existed? Is not this a suitable matter for investigation by a Select Committee? Why has not the Secretary of State made a statement, issued a writ or resigned?

The Prime Minister: I read extracts from the book in the Daily Mirror, but I cannot pretend that I have read the whole book, I am glad to say. As for breaches of security or anything of that nature, this has all been thoroughly investigated and I have nothing to say about it.

Mr. McNamara: The House will appreciate that, although it does not always agree with what the Prime Minister has said about commercial confidentiality and State security. Can he explain the reluctance of Ministers to explain the mechanics of government?

The Prime Minister: I think I can, but not now. If my hon. Friend is referring to the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its affairs and the systems it sets up, I would defend that. Having gone into it very carefully, I do not think that we need to expose officially—I know it is sometimes done unofficially—all our workings and doings to the public at large.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that in "The Pencourt File" there are allegations that the Secretary of State for Social Services deliberately waived the payment of insurance contributions, either by the employer or by the employee, for Mr. Norman Scott? These are serious matters which the Prime Minister must take seriously. Will he set up an inquiry and report to the House whether these allegations are true, otherwise the scandal will have to be presumed true in view of the lack of a denial?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is operating at about his usual level. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a very high level."] If he really wishes this matter to be taken seriously, I suggest that he puts down a Question instead of trying to tack a supplementary question on to a totally unrelated Question. If he puts down a Question, he will get an answer.

Mr. Woodall: Is the Prime Minister aware that a publication called "Billy's Weekly Liar" is sold pretty widely on the promenade at Blackpool? Will he advise Opposition Members to read something worth while for a change?

The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend is not referring to the colloquial title of the "Conservative Weekly News".

Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not clear that the golden rule for Ministers in the face of a hostile report from a Select Committee is "If in doubt ignore it, or abuse the Labour Members on it"?

The Prime Minister: That is not necessarily true; it would depend on the occasion. I should be governed by the words of my predecessors, among whom I note are the right hon. Members for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and say that it is important that the Government should retain the right to keep confidential the advice offered to them when they consider it proper to do so. I suggest that the hon. Member looks at speeches made on 22nd January 1973 and 15th March 1972, one relating to Govan Shipbuilders and one relating to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TAPE RECORDING)

Mr. English: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of this matter.
I should like you to exercise your good offices to give a direction to an Officer of the House. The other day I asked the Deliverer of the Vote, Mr. Marsden, what arrangements he would be making to enable Members to obtain cassettes of tapes the day after the broadcasting of our proceedings.
I received a reply from him which, after thanking me for my letter, said:
The question of the supply of cassettes free of charge to Members is one matter among


others on which I understand no decision has yet been taken. This subject falls within the remit of the Committee which is to be appointed to supervise the broadcasting of proceedings.
That Committee does not yet exist. Indeed, it may never exist before our proceedings are broadcast—and, if it does exist, it may not meet. This is a matter of some importance. I think that we are all honest enough to admit that very few of our speeches will be broadcast, but hon. Members might like to obtain a tape of some Question or remarks even if they are not broadcast.
I wonder whether you would ask the Deliverer of the Vote to discuss this problem with the BBC forthwith so that we may know what may be possible after Easter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware, as is the House, that the House decided on 6th February to set up a Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is clearly one not for me but for that Committee when it is established.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this matter involves an Officer of the House, may I have your guidance on one matter? Is it not the height of egotism and likely to shatter his marriage for an hon. Member to play back his own speech over breakfast in the morning?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would not affect me.

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Gun Barrel Proof Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

MEDICAL BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Medical Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put the two motions on Statutory Instruments together.

Ordered,
That the draft Probation Orders (Variation of Statutory Limits) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Hire-Purchase (Increase of Limit of Value) (Great Britain) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

CRIMINAL OFFENCES (APPEALS)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to appeals on sentences for criminal offences; and for connected purposes.
The object of this Bill is to end a longstanding anomaly in British law. I am aware that many people are concerned about the effects of this change.
I wish to bring some justice into me situation thrown up by the existing rules in criminal offences when an appeal against sentence is legitimately made. If a convicted criminal believes that a sentence is excessive, he can appeal, and it is right and proper that he should do so. However, under existing legislation the Court of Appeal is unable to increase the sentence. Under existing legislation, the prosecution is unable to appeal if it considers that the sentence is too lenient.
I am not suggesting that there should be uniformity in sentencing, because I appreciate that every case is different, but what I am proposing is that there should be a second look at all sentences where there is grave public concern about whether a sentence is too lenient. That is the essence of the Bill. Judges are only human and make mistakes. I believe that public confidence in the judiciary can be eroded if a second look is not taken at what the public regard as excessively lenient sentences.
There was a recent case involving the killing of a policeman that caused a great deal of public concern. The man concerned was charged with manslaughter and was given a one-year sentence. A petition has been drawn up on that case. It is in two parts, the first asking for an inquiry into the sentence and the second requesting the right of appeal for the prosecution. I do not want to deal with


that case or to reopen all cases, because I do not believe in retrospective justice. If my Bill were to be accepted, it would involve only future cases. The fact that no fewer than 150,000 people signed the petition because of what they regard as unduly lenient sentences is an indication that we should at least have a second look at the matter.
What is wrong with a second look? If the case goes to the Court of Appeal and there are mitigating circumstances in regard to a lenient sentence—and there may well be—that is fine, because public anxiety is thereby allayed, but if there is no reason for a particularly lenient sentence, in equity that sentence should be corrected. That is the impeccable logic of the need for a change in the law.
Some people argue that the object of the Bill may not be mercy, but vengeance. That is a nonsense. I am all for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. It is important that mercy should be applied. But it is interesting that although the opponents of the Bill talk about mercy when a person who has been convicted of a grave crime appeals against his sentence, they talk of vengeance when society seeks to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence. It is not a question of mercy or vengenance; it is a question of justice. Defendants and society should have the same right to apeal.
The independence of judges has also been brought into play, but this does not arise from the Bill. When a convicted criminal appeals, his appeal is heard by the judges in the Court of Appeal. If the Bill were passed, an appeal by the prosecution would also be heard by those judges. The independence of judges is not in question.
The final objection that is sometimes put forward is that the prosecution should play no part in sentencing policy, but that objection is based on a complete myth. The prosecution is closely involved now in sentencing policy. The prosecution selects the charges, and that has an effect on sentences. The prosecution must decide whether to ask for summary trials or committal, and that must have some relevance to sentences. Even after conviction, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring forward evidence that may affect the sentence, even though

that evidence may not have been acceptable in the trial itself.
The system of the prosecution having the right to appeal has worked abroad. It is accepted in France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. All the objections have been found to have no substance. Even in countries such as Canada and Australia with common law systems, the prosecution has a right to appeal. I suggest that in cases where there is acute public concern about an unduly lenient sentence, the prosecution should be able to apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions who, alone, will have the power to seek leave to appeal.
If an appeal were made, public anxiety would be allayed because the Court of Appeal would be able to explain why a lenient sentence had beeen given and why the prerogative of mercy had been exercised. If it were a case of an eccentric judge having given an eccentric sentence—and this has happened—that sentence could be corrected.
I believe that the Bill would reduce disparities in the law. That is its essence. It would ensure a greater understanding of, and consistency in, sentencing policy for criminals and thereby assure greater public confidence in the law.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Fairbairn: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I oppose the Bill on certain important principles.
No one is more concerned than I am with the diminution, eradication and prevention of crime and its proper and condign punishment and no party has been more concerned with punishment and the maintenance of law and order than the party to which I belong.
The Bill is not about an issue in which those who favour savage penalties are against those who favour soft penalties, and to present it as such is false and misleading. It may be appropriate since, although the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) spoke about British law—which does not exist—the Bill applies only to England, that a Scotsman should be opposing it. It may be


particularly appropriate now that England is, thank goodness, about to adopt our impartial and humane system of prosecution, which is infinitely more in the interests of justice.
The Bill arises from a major misunderstanding of the functions and methods of our courts. It arises from a contusion over the functions in this country. The Crown, in the form of the prosecution, is properly interested only in conviction and has no interest in sentencing. Equally, we appoint judges and magistrates whose function is to judge cases impartially and to impose what they regard as appropriate sentences. The sole concern of the Crown is conviction and, given the presumption of innocence, it is a proper tradition that the prosecution is fairly and not vindictively prosecuted. Let us never forget that presumption of innocence.
A court is appointed to promote and employ sentences. The House is not that court, though some hon. Members seem to wish that they were. There is a most dangerous practice growing up of hon. Members, not confined to one party, taking it upon themselves to criticise the individual words of a judge of whatever rank, the individual verdict of a court of whatever form and the individual sentence in particular cases.
If I may draw an analogy to show the importance of the principle, it is not for spectators, even if they are members of the rules committee, to object to the individual judgments of the referee in particular instances. That does great harm to the system which, thank God, we still have, of an independent judiciary which is neither a slave of Parliament nor an extension of the Executive. It is only in dictatorships that courts are a department of the State where the prosecutor carries out State policy and asks for a sentence which the State demands.
I hope that we never have a situation in this country in which the prosecution takes this one-sided view, asks for a particular sentence and then criticises other appointees of the State, namely, the courts, when they do not give the sentence which, in the prosecution's view alone, is appropriate.
Specific cases come before the court, which hears all the facts and, according to the lights of its capability, exercises a judgment. Each case differs, and to talk

as the hon. Gentleman did, of equivalent sentencing policy is to say that sentences should be equivalent in every careless motoring case. The facts in every case are different, whether they are the record of previous convictions or the defendant's involvement in an offence. They vary so much that the only person who can properly pronounce sentence is the judge who has sat in judgment of the witnesses and the evidence he has heard.
If an aggrieved citizen cares to challenge him, he can, in Scotland, risk having his sentence increased, though it can also be decreased. In England since 1968, alas, the sentence can only be decreased. If there are reforms to be made, a change here would be an appropriate reform.
It would be improper for a person to appear before a court, to receive a sentence of probation or five years' imprisonment and not to know until the prosecution had decided to appeal, first, to the Court of Appeal or perhaps even to the House of Lords, whether that was the sentence that he was to suffer. Equally, it would be improper if aggrieved persons or aggrieved prosecutors were for some reason entitled to appeal.
Let us think of the implications. First, the prosecution sees only one side of the picture whereas the court has to judge both sides. Secondly, think of the lever of plea bargaining. Let us think of prosecutors being able to say "If you plead guilty to this charge, we shall not appeal against the sentence if it is not one of imprisonment." Consider how improper that would be. Let us think of the position of the judge who, knowing the prosecutor and his propensities, has to sentence according to the likelihood of the prosecutor appealing and not according to the merits of the case.
There is also the difficulty of the clamour from this House, which is so anxious to be the appeal court. If it is a flying picket case, the prosecution in the House appeal that the sentence is too high. In the case of a rapist who is a guardsman, the prosecution appeal that the sentence is too low. The Bill seeks to introduce a dangerous principle into our constitution.
In the last year for which figures are available, there were 1,988,679 cases in England—nigh on 2 million—on indictment and other cases. Of those 2 million


cases there were only 1,542 appeals against sentence. Of those appeals only 517 were confirmed. The other 1,025 were either quashed, which was associated with the appeal against conviction, or altered. That puts the matter in perspective.
The public have an absolute right to be concerned about the abominable level of crime. They have an absolute right to expect that there is appropriate sentencing. The powers that Parliament has given to the courts give them more than adequate scope for adequate sentencing. If any hon. Member does not think so, let him argue on any Act that the fine should be stiffer or that the penalty of imprisonment should be longer.
We have a duty in this House. We have an important duty as the guardians and the trust of the institutions of our constitution. It is one in which the prosecution is independent and the judiciary

has a separate function. I should hate to see the day when they were regarded as having the same function and having anything in common.

I believe in protecting individual members of the public against crime. Nothing could be worse than that the prosecution should have a hand in sentencing. In the House we have a trust to protect the judiciary, the independence of the courts and the right of the citizen to be sentenced by an independent judge who is not partial in any way. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 293.

Division No. 109]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Ashley, Jack
Holland, philip
Selby, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Spence, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Spriggs, Leslie


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
McCartney, Hugh
White, James (Pollok)


Carter, Ray
McCusker, H.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Young, David (Bolton E)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)



Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John
Mr. Ken Weetch and


Hardy, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Ian Campbell.




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon, H. (Spelthorne)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, Burnaby


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dunlop, John


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Kenneth
Cant, R. B.
Elliott, Sir William


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
English, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Ennals, Rt, Hon David


Bates, Alf
Channon, Paul
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bean, R. E.
Clegg, Walter
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Beith, A. J.
Clemitson, Ivor
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cockroft, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Coleman, Donald
Flannery, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benyon, W.
Conlan, Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Forrester, John


Body, Richard
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Freud, Clement


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cryer, Bob
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gilbert, Dr John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Brittan, Leon
Deakins, Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Brotherton, Michael
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dempsey, James
Golding, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Doig, Peter
Goodhart, Philip


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dormand, J. D.
Goodlad, Alastair


Buck, Antony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gould, Bryan


Budgen Nick
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)




Graham, Ted
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rose, Paul B.


Grieve, Percy
McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Griffiths, Eldon
Magee, Bryan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rowlands, Ted


Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Royle, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sandelson, Neville


Harper, Joseph
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sedgemore, Brian


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil
Sever, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mates, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mayhew, Patrick
Silvester, Fred


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Sinclair, Sir George


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Horam, John
Moate, Roger
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hordern, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Spearing, Nigel


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morgan, Geraint
Stanley, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Fit Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stoddart, David


Hunter, Adam
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stott, Roger


James, David
Moyle, Roland
Stradling Thomas, J.


Janner, Greville
Mudd, David
Strang, Gavin


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


John, Brynmor
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tapsell, Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Newens, Stanley
Tebbit, Norman


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Oakes, Gordon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Onslow, Cranley
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ovenden, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jopling, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tinn, James


Judd, Frank
Page, Richard (Workington)
Tomlinson, John


Kaufman, Gerald
Palmer, Arthur
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kelley, Richard
Park, George
Tuck, Raphael


Kerr, Russell
Parkinson, Cecil
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kershaw, Anthony
Parry, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Kimball, Marcus
Pendry, Tom
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Penhaligon, David
Wakeham, John


Kinnock, Neil
Percival, Ian
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)
Ward, Michael


Lamont, Norman
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Watkins, David


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rathbone, Tim
Watkinson, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Rhodes James, R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Litterick, Tom
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Younger, Hon George


Luce, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macfarlane, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn
Nicholas Fairbairn and


MacGregor, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Ian Gow.

Question accordingly negatived.

SCOTLAND BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Report 7th February of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. Foot.]

put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That of the three days which, under the Order [16th November] and the Resolution of the Business Committee agreed to by the House on 22nd November, are given to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, two shall be allotted to proceedings on consideration: and those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion as follows—



(a) new Clauses and amendments to end of line 16 on page 38 [Clause 80(1)] at 7.30 p.m. on the second day; and
(b) remainder at 11 p.m. on the second day.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. and hon. Friends decided not to vote against the business motion in order to save time, because we are constricted by the guillotine. However, I should point out that we think it completely wrong for the Government to arrange a motion of this kind, to give a re-run of a debate that lasted some hours in Committee, within the time allotted under the allocation of time motion. We think that if the Government wanted a re-run of a debate, to which they are entitled, they should have provided extra time. We think that it should not cut into the guillotine. The effect will be that a large number of matters will not have been discussed even at the end of Report.
I make that protest. In order to save time, we did not divide against the motion.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, considered.

New Clause 1

PERIOD BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTION AND REFERENDUM

"If Parliament is dissolved before a referendum has been held in pursuance of section 80 of this Act, that referendum shall not be held until a period of three months has elapsed after the polling day of the ensuing general election.".—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 2, in Clause 2, page 2, line 15, after "State", insert
but which may not be any day within a six-month period after a general election of the United Kingdom Parliament".
No. 3, in page 2, line 18, at end insert
But if a general election for the United Kingdom Parliament has taken place during the six months preceding such date then the Assembly election will be postponed for a period of six months from the date of the United Kingdom general election.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that I can deal with this matter fairly succinctly. Until recently it had not occurred to most of us that the Government would entertain the notion of having a General Election and the referendum on the same day. After all, the point of the referendum is to reach as so-called an objective a view as possible on the desirability of a cataclysmic constitutional change. Part of the object of a referendum is allegedly to disentangle the decision from the whole mosaic of party loyalties and other factors which come into play at a General Election.
However, in this whole devolution saga anything is possible, is it not? No eventuality can be ruled out. Therefore, it was only prudent before Christmas that gentle inquiries should be made whether


the option of having a General Election and the referendum on the same day was absolutely ruled out.
I shall spare the House some of the picturesque and Delphic answers that were given to such inquiries. With a General Election in the offing, even though the date of the referendum would have to come back to the House of Commons, we can imagine the kinds of pressure that Members of Parliament would be up against just to say "All right, we suppose that we must have the referendum and an election at the same time, given the circumstances." These kinds of pressure in this scenario, even though it had to come back to the House, would be easily understandable.
My innocent belief that my hon. and right hon. Friends would not contemplate having a General Election and the referendum on the same day was further dented by the assertion by Fred Emery of The Times in his column on Saturday, 14th January that consideration was being given to having the referendum and a General Election on the same day.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: I see that the Minister of State shakes his head. A journalist does not reveal his sources and I know better than to have the impertinence to ask but I reckon that it is a fair assumption the incoming political editor of The Times would not go out on a limb and state that consideration was being given to killing the General Election bird and the referendum bird with one stone unless he had it from someone who was likely to know.
Let us face it, at one level fixing the referendum and the General Election at the same time does have its seductive attractions. First, it would be less expensive and save a lot of extra organisation. Secondly, perhaps the timing would be convenient, given the difficulties of autumn and winter. Thirdly, it would be possible to wrap up a "Yes" vote in the referendum in the party loyalty package.
Greater still bath the temptations become since the passing of the amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and

Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Ever since the coming of that amendment, the temptation to put a General Election and the referendum together must, for obvious reasons, have become that much greater.
Furthermore, last and least, having a General Election and a referendum would, let us be candid, have the effect of putting people such as myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) up the proverbial political gum tree. Perish the thought. Ministers would be less than human if they did not regard that as an acceptable bonus. They might be forgiven for so doing. But that is no reason why I should not attempt to pre-empt them.
This new clause relates to matters of infinitely greater significance than the comparative trivia of the personal position of myself and some of my hon. Friends who are associated with the Labour "vote No" campaign or, indeed, even less trivial considerations such as the dilemmas facing a minority Government in 1978. In the first place it would be deeply wrong in this instance to intertwine decisions in a General Election which, whatever its result, can be reversed one way or another in four or five years time at the most with a decision on a subordinate Parliament in Edinburgh which, for good or evil, will be irrevocable during the lifetime of us all. If an Assembly were established in the Royal High School, it could not be abolished in the next half century. If it is not abolished, it will lead inexorably, as we have seen time and again in the last 35 days on the Floor of the House, to a separate Scottish State.
This is a solemn decision which should be taken in a referendum which is separate in time from a General Election. A General Election may be about such ephemeral matters as the blacklisting of firms or the current Leader of the Opposition's utterances on race. The decision taken by the people of Scotland should not get mixed up with federal issues.
If I am thought to be exaggerating, hon. Members need look no further than the views of the Scottish Council of the Labour Party—not a body which officially shares my views on devolution. I quote from The Scotsman—not exactly


an anti-devolutionist organ—of 30th January 1978. It stated:
'The present proposal of a single question' say the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, in their submission to the Prime Minister, 'will define the boundary between the status quo and the Assembly envisaged in the Scotland Act. But that Assembly is itself potentially unstable and requires a second boundary to be drawn short of independence by the inclusion of a second question in the referendum.'
As we know, rightly or wrongly, the question proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) got short shrift from the Prime Minister and will not be included. Therefore I take it as the considered opinion of the Scottish Council of the Labour Party that the Assembly will be unstable. By implication it, too, has come to recognise that the Bill is leading somewhere else—towards cataclysmic change in the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps it would agree in the circumstances which it has identified that a referendum is not suitable for the hurly burly of a General Election. Indeed, as I understand it, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State was interviewed on STV by Colin MacKay he said that he did not agree with the Scottish Council of the Labour Party on that matter. I know that it is unfair to tie anyone down to what happens on a television programme but this is the point to which the Scottish Council of the Labour Party has come. It suggests that the Assembly proposed by my right hon. Friends is unstable. If the Minister of State disagrees with this he has to make a case why he disagrees and to rebut the Scottish Council of the Labour Party.
There is a second consideration which is perhaps no less important—whether we set a precedent in Britain of tagging and tacking on a referendum to a General Election. It was one thing to have the EEC referendum in the summer of 1975 apart from a General Election. It would be quite another matter to tag on the referendum question to a General Election. That would be a step towards changing the British constitution from roughly a representative democracy to a plebiscatory democracy. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who was a member of

the Kilbrandon Committee and has studied these matters, will know what I am getting at.
Such a change might be right or wrong, but surely it is in itself worth a major debate in the House and in the country at large. We should not lurch into such a fundamental alteration in our political life simply as an appendix and afterthought to the devolution Bill and the devolution argument. If we are to change to a plebiscatory State, this is a matter which commands a fundamental debate on its own merits. If we British are to become like the Swiss and have referenda and elections together, at least the House of Commons had better discuss the matter on its merits and not have such a major issue of principle spatchcocked into the devolution mire.
Make no mistake, if we have a referendum and a General Election together, albeit in one part of the kingdom, there will be endless demands for referenda at every General Election on everything from capital punishment to the abortion laws and on any constitutional change which is dreamed up. That is the fact of the matter.
So, what are we to do? I earnestly ask the Government to accept the amendment. If they do, so much the better. The Minister of State can rise in his place without more ado and the Committee can progress to other matters. On the other hand, if we are given a lorry load of good intentions but the Government say that for this reason or for that they would prefer not to have the new clause, I give notice that I shall listen carefully to what the Minister of State says about the issue having to come back to the House of Commons—though at first sight I see this as rather unreal, given the political facts of life—but the temptation will be to press the matter to a Division.
It is not that I doubt the Minister's sincerity in being averse to combining a referendum and a General Election. It is simply that the experience of the devolution debate has taught me that politicians either in the Government or otherwise in the House of Commons succumb to short-term temptations. In the last five years we have all succumbed to short-term temptations of some kind or another.
Let us say that I am pressing the new clause on Ministers for their own good,


though they might not recognise it immediately as for their own good, and to prevent them, in a binding way, from succumbing to a temptation to which, in their wiser moments, they would not wish to succumb.

Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair when the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) quoted from Mr. Emery in The Times. At that point the Minister of State shook his head, thereby, to my inclination, denying what was said in that article. We have an enormous amount of business to do and we are short of time. If the Minister of State rises now and gives the undertaking for which he was asked we can make more rapid progress than will otherwise be possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Minister.

Mr. John Smith: In response to a request by the Committee—

Mr. Ian Cow: The House.

Mr. Smith: That is an important correction. In response to the wish of the House, I am happy to reply.
I have been asked to state the Government's position, and perhaps might do so without going into the detail of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) advanced about being up political gum trees, and so on.
My hon. Friend put a serious case that there would be difficulties if a General Election coincided with the referendum. I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be undesirable to tangle the issues that divide parties on the important matters with which the referendum would be concerned with those raised at the General Election. It is not the Government's intention to coincide the date of the General Election with the date of the referendum. I make that clear to my hon. Friend.
However, I think that there are difficulties about the new clause. I do not know why a period of three months is particularly useful. I do not see the need for it to be three months. In any event, as my hon. Friend foreshadowed, the date of the referendum is subject to an affirma-

tive resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is made clear in paragraph 11 of Schedule 17, and therefore both Houses will have the opportunity to decide the date of the referendum.
As there is a desire to make progress, perhaps the House will find it convenient to rest on the assurance that I have given that it is not the Government's intention to coincide these dates, and that in any event the House will be able to take the final decision. All that the Government can do is to propose the date of the referendum. They must accept the decision of Parliament.

Mr. Francis Pym: Would it be correct to interpret the Minister as saying categorically that the Government will not propose an arrangement by which the referendum and the General Election can in any way be mixed up? He added the caveat that if Parliament decided to overthrow the Government's decision that would be another matter, but the Government must do nothing to mix what are distinct and separate issues. The General Election and the referendum are both critically important and totally different in character. Is the Minister stating categorically that they cannot be mixed up?

Mr. Smith: I am being categorical in saying that it is not the Government's intention to coincide the date of the General Election with the likely date of the referendum.

Mr. Paul Channon: If that is so, why do the Government object to the new clause, or some other clause like it? If the Government do not intend to coincide the referendum with, the General Election, there should be no objection to their saying that the referendum will not be less than three months after the General Election, or perhaps even six weeks or two months. Would it not be just as easy to meet the wishes of the House and write something like that into the Bill?

Mr. Smith: I do not know whether three months would be suitable. We do not know the likely date of the General Election, and I do not want to encourage speculation about when that might be. I have given a clear assurance of the Government's intentions, and I do not see any point in writing any time into the


clause, bearing in mind that it will be for Parliament to have the final decision on the date of the referendum. I hope that what I have said is sufficient for the new clause not to be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Tim Renton: Perhaps I might ask a further question, having put my name to the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The Minister said that he would ensure that the referendum did not coincide with the General Election date. Can he be more specific about that? What we have in mind in pressing the new clause is to ensure that the two campaigns are kept totally separate so that there is no blurring of the edges in either. Can the Minister be more explicit and tell us exactly what is intended?

Mr. Smith: We want to disentangle the decision of the referendum from the decision of the General Election. I am giving a categorical and precise assurance that we would not seek to have the referendum on the day of the General Election. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it would not be within the spirit of what I have said to have the two events on successive days. We want to distinguish the two operations. We want a referendum and a decision, and we want a General Election and a decision. I am trying to be as precise as I can and say that the Government do not wish the two matters to be tangled. There seems to be a great deal of suspicion about what is intended. I am giving a clear and honest assurance of what the Government intend.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The House accepts the assurance given by the Minister about the dates, but what concerns me and others is the coinciding of campaigns. That is what is important. Can the Minister be a little more helpful? It would further assist the debate if he could tell the House that it is the intention that the dates will be such that the campaigns will not coincide.

Mr. Smith: I am being careful in what I am saying, because I do not know for how long it would be reasonable to expect a campaign to run. It would be important to consider the issues involved in the public mind. It is not our intention

to coincide the dates, and I go further and say that we shall seek to keep the campaigns apart from each other.
However, a genuine difficulty might be a dispute among hon. Members about what was the length of a campaign. I am giving an assurance, which I hope the House will accept, that it is the Government's intention not to confuse the issues. We take the point made by my hon. Friend that there could be some undesirable features, such as a conflict of party loyalties, and perhaps members of the same party campaigning against one another, but I do not think that I can go any further or make the matter much clearer.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that essentially either a campaign must take place or that whatever time is decided will lapse between the General Election and the referendum will be an arbitrary decision. Whether it is written into the Bill or is a matter of Government decision, it is an arbitrary period of time. I still do not see the fundamental objections to providing a safeguard by writing this provision into the Bill. To do so does not mean that the House is suspicious of Ministers, but the House is naturally and properly suspicious of Governments in general.

Mr. Smith: I put it as an objection to the new clause—this was before I gave way to some hon. Members—that it introduced an element of rigidity. It says that there will be three months. It would be better to have more flexibility for the House to reach the final decision, because it is perhaps not as widely appreciated as it might be that the Government can only propose a date for the referendum. They cannot fix it. The House can take all these considerations into account when it decides whether to approve or not to approve what is proposed. It is a decision not only for this House. The decision has to be carried through both Houses of Parliament. I think that there is sufficient protection in the Bill, and therefore I think that the House would be wiser not to tie itself down to a period of three months.
4.30 p.m.
I believe that most referendum campaigns would not run for a period of three


months. As I recollect the position on the European campaign, it ran for three or four weeks. The legislation was enacted on 8th May and an Order in Council announcing the date of the rules for the referendum was made on 14th May 1975. The referendum was held on 5th June 1975. My recollection of that campaign was that it was of much the same duration as a normal General Election campaign—one month or thereabouts. I do not think that there is any merit in writing in as long a period as three months. It would be wiser for the House to accept my assurance as to the Government's intention and to note that it will be governed by a decision of the House. We should not tie ourselves down to a period of three months in advance.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the Minister agree that the position is that if this new clause were passed and if the Government wished to change their mind the whole procedure of amending legislation would be required, which would be a safeguard? If, on the other hand, this clause is not passed, the House is, in the last resort, protected only by the procedure of passing an order and has primarily to rely on what confidence it may feel in the Prime Minister, a man who, as Home Secretary, rigged the boundaries.

Mr. Smith: I do not think that that kind of comment helps us to reach a sensible decision on the matter. The House is seeking to look at the merits of the issue at the moment. The hon. Gentleman asked whether, after an order had been made, the Government would have to go through amending legislation. They would not have to do so. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill he would know that under Clause 75(2) it is possible to revoke an order and to make a further order if that were necessary, although I doubt whether it would be necessary.
The proposition that I put to the House is that the Government do not wish to see these things tangled up with each other. We feel that to pass the new clause might mean tying the hands of the House for as long as three months. Given that there is this clear intention that Parliament must pass any order by affirmative resolution of both Houses, it would be most sensible to leave matters, in the

light of what I have said and of the provisions already in the Bill.

Mr. Gow: I am sure that the House is anxious to try to respond to the way in which the Minister of State has intervened. He has given us a clear assurance that the Government will not coincide the date of a referendum with the date of a General Election. Can he give us an assurance about the minimum period between the date of a General Election and the date of a referendum? What is his minimum undertaking to the House on that subject?

Mr. Smith: I must confess that I have not applied my mind to what would be a minimum period. I think it is difficult in advance to pin oneself down without considering the matter carefully and fully. I know that the hon. Member is seeking to be helpful in his intervention and I am not seeking to be unhelpful in reply. I have made it clear that the Government do not want—this would appear to be the suspicion, at least in the mind of the political editor of The Times—to coincide the two events. I have been taken to task for shaking my head at the point when the comments of Mr. Emery were mentioned. I did so to express disagreement with the conclusion of the political editor of The Times that the Government were considering coinciding these events. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that he ought not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend is being most forthcoming and has gone a long way to meet the point being made in the new clause. Could he go a little further? If he can move a little further we can carry on with the next business. My hon. Friend has readily accepted that the purpose of the new clause is to prevent a referendum being held at the same time as a General Election. The House is generally agreed that that would be a bad thing.
The point which again arises is that a referendum campaign should not start while we are settling our election accounts. The House has to reassemble. We need some time for that. I can understand my hon. Friend saying that we should not tie ourselves to a period of


three months because if we had an October election we do not want to be fighting a referendum at Christmas. Can my hon. Friend, after consultation with the Leader of the House, give us some idea about what he is thinking and whether two months—

Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend accept—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention in an intervention.

Mr. Evans: I hope that my hon. Friend will go a little further. Then we can move on.

Mr. Smith: The House should give me a little more latitude on this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) says, I have gone a fair distance. There is, however, always a request to go a little further. I hear competing propositions of one month, two months and the like. What I have said is that the Government have never considered that it would be a clever idea to combine the two events, as seems to have got into the head of the political editor of The Times, and from there into the head of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. We have never even thought of such a proposition.
It was interesting that my hon. Friend advanced the "Cunningham amendment" as something which would encourage the Government to adopt such a proposition. I feel like saying that my hon. Friend is the biter bit in that regard because he voted for the "Cunningham amendment". If there were to be the consequence he suggests there would be some poetic justice in that. Fortunately, we do not take important decisions on such flippant grounds.
I hope that the House will accept my clear assurance that the Government will seek to disentangle the two propositions. We are in a difficulty in that we do not know when the General Election will be. That makes discussion of this matter a little more awkward. It would be unwise to fix a period of three months and thereby tie the hands of Parliament.

Mr. George Cunningham: Obviously the Government Front Bench is trying to be

extremely helpful. We have our difficulties. If the new clause had appeared in terms of two months would the Government Front Bench have had the same difficulty in accepting it?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that, much as I am anxious to help my hon. Friend, I do not think that I can answer questions about hypothetical amendments. The new clause on the Amendment Paper specifies three months. I think that that is too long a period of time, bearing in mind our experience of General Election campaigns and of the referendum held in Britain on the Common Market. It would be wise for the House, bearing in mind the assurance I have given, and the important fact that it is the House which would take the final decision, not to tie its hands in advance.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of this discussion—which I have often heard before, particularly in Committee, when a particular figure is suggested in an amendment and when, in the light of discussion, it looks as if another figure might command support—you will know that it is not uncommon for the Chair to be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment. I am not asking you whether you would be prepared to do so. What I am saying is that, given that it would be possible for that to happen—it is not a hypothetical question because if the Minister were to say "I cannot accept three months but I can accept two months"—it is something which the House could decide. I would ask you not to treat it as a hypothetical question, because it is not necessarily so. I am not asking you to say whether the Chair would accept a manuscript amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only saying that it is a possibility and therefore the Minister should respond to this by saying whether he would be prepared to offer two months instead of three.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has been skilful in making his point on what I do not think was a point of order. The acceptance of manuscript amendments is Mr. Speaker's prerogative alone.

Mr. Tim Renton: We are grateful to the Minister for the help he has tried to give us. I hear my hon. Friends saying


"Let us get on with the debate." There is a genuine problem here for those of us deeply concerned about the new clause, which is perhaps best illustrated by quoting a few examples.
The Minister naturally lays great emphasis on the fact that both Houses have to agree to a referendum date. Let us assume that the Government publish September as a referendum date and this is so agreed by both Houses before we rise at the end of July, and that subsequently, in August, the Prime Minister decides to call a General Election in October. At that point in time the veto of both Houses or either House on the referendum date no longer applies. The Queen, in her Prerogative, approving the Prime Minister's suggestion, would agree to the October date. It might happen the other way round. The General Election might come before the referendum. The General Election might be in September and the referendum in October.
I envisage one contingency on which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did not touch, understandably, which is that the Tories will win the next General Election. In that event they will be committed to putting the whole devolution question to a constitutional conference. That is our suggestion. But already a referendum campaign will have been suggested on my hypothesis by the Government for a mere month ahead, and it would be very difficult within those short dates for the whole question of a referendum or the possibility of a referendum to be down.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps before the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) goes too far into that hypothesis he should bear in mind that the Leader of the Opposition said in Glasgow recently that in the event of the Act being on the statute book before the referendum was held, she was committed to going ahead with the referendum. The hon. Member may be disagreeing with her, but I am warning him that that is what she said.

Mr. Renton: Yes, but, with all respect to the Minister of State, we are now dealing with just the sort of hypothesis that the hon. Member for West Lothian had in mind when suggesting that the two issues must not be coterminous. If one is bringing the dates together as closely as that, clearly if the referendum

has not happened we shall be fighting, or some of us on the Conservative Benches will, a General Election campaign on the issue that devolution as proposed by the Bill should not go forward. We shall be campaigning for a "No" vote in the referendum to come.
In those circumstances, what stance would someone such as the hon. Member for West Lothian take when fighting for re-election as a Labour candidate, saying that in every other respect he supports the Labour platform but in a month's time he will be campaigning for a "No" vote? The two issues—the General Election and the referendum—on the hypothetical dates that I have assumed, become inevitably muddled and confused.
I do not say, and I do not think that the hon. Member for West Lothian had it specifically in mind, that three months is necessarily the right period. It is a minimum of three months. If the General Election campaign happens in September, the referendum does not have to take place at Christmas time because just three months have elapsed.
The purpose behind the new clause was to ensure that there was no confusion between the two campaigns, no blurring of the edges. In the hypothesis that I have suggested the referendum date could be accepted by both Houses and then the General Election date subsequently announced with, say, a month's interval between the two campaigns, so that the two issues were inevitably confused.
All of us would like to get on with the Bill. We are all grateful to the Minister of State for his help to the House. However, it is essential that we should this afternoon be given some idea of the minimum interval that the Government would accept with a view to its being written into the Bill in another place. If the Minister can do that, and if it is a period that Members on both sides of the House find satisfactory, I believe that we can go forward. But without having some minimum period specified, it is very difficult for us to accept, with nothing else just the verbal assurance of the Minister.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: It seems to me that at least on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for


West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the Government are at one on the question of avoiding the holding of a referendum on or about the same date as a General Election. There is no difficulty there. My hon. Friend the Minister has given us his assurance that he and the present members of the Government wish to avoid a referendum being held on the same day as a General Election.
We all know that circumstances alter and that things may happen which may concentrate the mind of the Government. For example, towards the end of the debates in Committee there was the very wise insertion of the 40 per cent. requirement, which might have led the Government to think that they would be more likely to obtain a 40 per cent. "Yes" vote if the referendum were held on the same day as the General Election. Things may happen between now and the final passing of the Bill to make the Government change their minds about when they want to hold the referendum. There may be a number of reasons for wanting to change their minds. There may be devious reasons—I do not know—but they could have reasons. Therefore despite the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have a great respect, I would prefer to see some provision in the Bill about it.
The objection raised by my hon. Friend that it is unnecessary to tie us down by stipulating periods such as three months does not hold water, because in the Bill the Government have made use of this sort of proposal. One need not read the Bill very thoroughly to see that. For example, it is proposed that the Assembly should have fixed-period elections, except, of course, if the Secretary of State thinks it might be a good idea to vary the period a little. The Government have laid down in Clause 3 a time limit within which he could vary it by two months either way. The principle of a time limit to restrict the Secretary of State, for example in his activities has been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the situation is different in so far as the date for the elections for the Assembly is a fixed event—that is, subject to the two months either way—but the date would

be known for election after election after election, within the sliding period allowed, whereas we are dealing in this case with an unknown event, the date when the United Kingdom General Election will take place?

Mr. Lamond: I accept that. It is wise to have a time limit in the Bill restricting the Secretary of State to a period within which he may vary the date, but I am arguing from that premise that it is also very wise to have a time limit in the Bill so that we can be quite sure that the referendum is not held on the same date as the General Election. It is not I who objects to the time limit. It is the Government. I think that the hon Gentleman's intervention is correct.
I have another point relating to Clause 6, which deals with the question of a bye-election to fill a vacancy in the Assembly. It happens to be very convenient for the Government and Opposition alike to have no time limit laid down in this House as to when a vacancy must be filled. Sometimes the matter drags on for a long time if a Member has died and it suits his party to let the vacancy drag on. But Clause 6(3) says:
The date of the election
—that is, the election to fill a casual vacancy—
shall be not later than three months after the occurrence of the vacancy.
In other words, the Government think that it is essential to tie down the filling of such a vacancy in the Assembly, which I would have thought was less important than filling a vacancy in this Parliament. They feel that it is necessary to impose a limit of three months.
All that I am saying is that if the principle of laying down time limits is acceptable for the General Election for the Assembly, or even for filling a casual vacancy in the Assembly, it is surely not asking too much of the Government also to accept the clause, which lays down the same time limit of three months for the holding of a referendum.

Mr. Dalyell: It is no secret that when Back Benchers try to put their intentions into legislative form they rely heavily on the learned Clerks of the House. I put it to Mr. Tony Birley, who advised us on these matters, that it was a question of "at least three months". He


pointed out, quite understandably, that as I had said
until a period of three months has elapsed
it was not a rigid time limit of three months, that it meant not less than three months, and that the words "at least" were superfluous. Therefore, one cannot be tied down to a 13-week period or whatever it is. It is "at least three months". That is the best advice available to us.

Mr. Lamond: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which makes clear that he at least is perhaps a little more flexible than the Government in this matter.
I should like to know why the Government think it right for them to put in time limits for matters of no great importance, such as the filling of a casual vacancy in the Assembly, when there is no time limit in this House and the House has worked quite efficiently despite that. Yet as soon as a Back Bencher proposes a clause providing for a time limit, that is seized upon as a reason for rejecting it.

Sir John Gilmour: I agree with the conclusions that I think hon. Members have come to, on consideration of the clause, that two months might be the right gap between a referendum and a General Election. I have two amendments, Nos. 2 and 3, dealing with the timing of Assembly elections in relation to a General Election for the United Kingdom Parliament. I suggest that there should be a gap of at least six months.
A referendum can be fought on a cross-party basis, but I am certain that the elections for the Assembly will be fought on party political lines. If there is no provision for a gap between the holding of a General Election and the holding of an Assembly election people in the parties who have just argued their way through a General Election might have to go to an Assembly election within two months. I suggest that six months is the right period. It is true that under Clause 2(2) the Secretary of State has the power to make an allowance of two months, but I do not believe that two months is long enough after a fight that has been fought entirely on party political lines.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has gone a long way to meet the purpose of the clause. It is a pity the Government cannot move that little bit further so that we may go on to deal with other business. I do not think that there is any purpose in our having a long debate to try to convince the Government, when they have already been convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
However, I should like to make one suggestion that the Government might think constructive. I understand that Ministers cannot make a quick decision on the Front Bench and tell the House "We have decided that two months instead of three would be a sufficient period", but if three months is not acceptable I suggest that nothing less than two months would be acceptable to the Committee.
After a General Election a month must elapse before one can think of campaigning again. I am sure that all hon. Members and future Members of the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, and perhaps elsewhere in Britain, will be very much involved in the referendum campaign. After the rigours of a General Election they would want a respite, and I am sure that Ministers would also want a respite.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Why?

Mr. Evans: I know that the SNP is always campaigning for an independent Scotland, and I realise that the referendum would be part of that campaign for its members, but the SNP is in a minority in this House.
Tomorrow we are to discuss another series of amendments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the sense of what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian proposes, and then look at Schedule 17, dealing with the referendum. It says:
The referendum shall be held on such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.
If the Government could produce tomorrow a form of words that would meet the object of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, we could move on without having to divide, as there seems to be general agreement.
I came to the House today to support my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian to argue that we should not become involved in a party political campaign on the question of devolution. There are divisions within parties. A fundamental constitutional change faces the people of Scotland and Wales. For us in Wales, this Bill is a trailer: we are to come later. What is decided for Scotland will have a great bearing on what will happen for Wales. That applies to all the amendments to the Bill.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the matter. He has more or less agreed that the period must be about two months. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is talking about three months. There is a very narrow difference. We are all agreed that we shall not have the referendum at the same time as the General Election. Perhaps I should not say this, but there is an unstated presumption in this discussion that the referendum looks like coming after the next General Election. The possibility of its coming before has not been spelt out, so presumably it will be held after the General Election. If the General Election is to be held first, time must elapse before the holding of the referendum.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian will be given some assurance, and that tomorrow we may have an amendment to Schedule 17 spelling out exactly a time acceptable to the House. Certainly, before the Bill goes to another place, such an amendment should be made to the schedule.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It seems to me that there is only one point at issue between the House and the Government. That is whether an expression of our mutual dislike of combining a referendum campaign with a General Election campaign should or should not be written into the Bill.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that a firm time—I am not particular about three months or two months—should be written into the Bill, for a number of reasons.
First, as my hon. Friend showed, without it the freedom of choice that the Minister is so anxious to preserve for

the House is to some extent illusory, in that the possibilities of the prerogative being exercised for the dissolution of Parliament could make a prior decision of the House about a referendum nugatory, without anyone having in any way sought to behave improperly, to rig matters or to gerrymander.
Secondly, I have a profound distrust of all Governments, including those of which I have been a member. I have a certain distrust, which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) expressed, about the House itself reaching wise decisions in the context of a forthcoming General Election. I will give only one example. It relates to a matter that we have been discussing indirectly fairly recently—the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. It was carefully drawn so that it was not possible for the Government of the day to alter the statutory provisions before the latest time for a General Election. This was done deliberately as evidence of the will of the Government to maintain the statutory provisions even in the atmosphere of an election campaign, knowing that they would be extremely unpopular.
5.0 p.m.
I think that this Bill is a fair parallel and that it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to write a definite time limit separating a possible General Election from a possible referendum, in order to make it quite plain to all concerned, both in the House and in the country at large, that there is no possibility of the two campaigns getting mixed up, and no possibility of anybody of ill will deliberately trying to run the two together by one means or another.
There is an additional and extremely important reason, which the hon. Member for West Lothian touched upon, for this provision being written into the Bill. It is that a General Election will concern the United Kingdom as a whole, whereas it is proposed—wrongly, in my view—that the referendum should concern Scotland and only Scotland. Moreover, the qualification is one of residence, rather than domicile or any other qualification, and only of residence. This means that Scotsmen living and working for the time being in England will be able to vote in a General Election but not in a referendum, while Englishmen living and working for the time being in Scotland will be able to


vote in both. This seems to me to be an additional constitutional—or political if not constitutional—reason for having the two campaigns deliberately and firmly separated, in a form which cannot be altered and which is seen not to be alterable.
There is a further reason. It might be that at a later stage the constituency for the referendum could be extended, but it might also happen that the provision for a minimum majority, which this House judged should be added to the Bill, could be altered at a later stage. If we did not have the 40 per cent. safeguard, it would become, in my view, all the more important to separate very firmly the election from the referendum.
It would be quite wrong if the enthusiasm which an election campaign might generate, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, were to bring about a higher turnout for a referendum campaign, thereby nullifying any effort to the contrary except on the part of those who were most determined to abstain. Once the two were linked in people's minds, the temptation would be to vote one way or the other, for reasons quite separate from those being put before the electorate in the referendum.
There is one further reason why I believe that it is necessary for the more distant future that the new clause should be written into the Bill. We are not only creating a constitutional precedent for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for West Lothian pointed out, by setting up irrevocably a subordinate Parliament in Edinburgh—an Assembly which, as he said, is now widely admitted to be inevitably unstable. We are also creating a precedent for managing the affairs of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman, in moving the new clause, said that by hitching a referendum to an election we should be moving towards government by plebiscite, and he was right. Now that the House has debated the issue, it seems to me to be inevitable that in the future, when any question of a referendum arises, it will inevitably be linked with the date of a possible General Election.
For this reason, as well as for the sake of the Scotland Bill, and for the fake of future legislation and the possibility of

future referendums, I believe that we should firmly establish the principle that whenever this House passes a Bill enabling a referendum to be held, steps should be taken to dissociate that referendum, in the terms in which the Bill goes forward for Royal Assent, from any possible General Election campaign which could take place at about the same time. I think that otherwise we shall be doing grave constitutional disservice to the United Kingdom, not only through the Scotland Bill but indirectly in other ways.

Mr. Dalyell: Does it not follow from what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, that we in Britain should have a referendum Act to govern the conduct of referendums?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman would give some assurance concerning the device referred to earlier for writing into the Bill a specific date at a later stage, that would go a long way to re-assure us. If he were to contemplate bringing forward a referendum Bill which would remove all these grisly possibilities once and for all, that again would reassure us, but I do not think it is quite fair to expect a Minister of State to give that undertaking this afternoon.

Mr. J. Grimond: This afternoon's debate seems to me to illustrate the appalling muddle into which the Bill has got. Here we are at the Report stage, and it is now apparent that no one has thought out the implications of the referendum which is central to the Bill, nor has it been discussed in this House or in Committee in any way whatever.
When I came to the House this afternoon, I was all in favour of voting for the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) but, having listened to the debate, I am not now so sure about that. Let us just think of the programme before us. We are to have a General Election, and no sooner shall we have finished with that than apparently we are to embark on another campaign, concerned with the referendum. It may well be that the Conservatives will win the General Election. If so, the whole position about devolution will have been totally altered. But even if the Conservatives do not win the General Election, it is extremely unlikely


that the British people—or, indeed, their political leaders—will work themselves up again about another campaign concerned with the referendum.
In America that would be quite possible, but in American elections people vote for all sorts of things, and 20 or 30 different decisions are taken on the same day. Perhaps, if we are to have a referendum at all, it should be at the time of the General Election. At any rate, people would then go willingly on that date to the polling booths. They might actually cast their votes. But it is extremely unlikely that a fortnight or three weeks afterwards they would go at all.
I do not know what the Government's view is about this. Perhaps they wish to accept a later amendment about a minimum poll and hope that the whole Bill will be forgotten. If that is their view, they are going, the right way about it because nothing could be more certain to kill the Bill than to have a referendum within two or three weeks of a General Election.
That might be their view. That appears to be what they are saying this afternoon. It seems to me that either one accepts that this country is moving towards the American situation, in which one has a lot of decisions to make on the same day, or else one accepts the view of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who believes that we should have no other voting within six months.
The Government should make their position clear. It is quite obvious to me that unless they are keen to kill the Bill—who knows, they may be in favour of doing so, because a few years ago they held the view that the Bill would be better out of the way—they must either accept that the referendum should be held at the same time as the General Election, which would guarantee people going to the polls in bigger numbers than they would otherwise, or else put it off for some time.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the referendum be held at the same time as a General Election. If some target, perhaps 33½ per cent., were set as being required for such a constitutional change, on a minimum 67 per cent. turn-out such a figure could be achieved. But it would be unlikely that we would get a

67 per cent. turn-out on the referendum issue and, therefore, the effect of a General Election would cloud the basic decision.

Mr. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That seems to be the dilemma which the House is in. Here we are on Report, we are far advanced in our proceedings and no one has any idea when the referendum should be held, what its effect will be or how it should be manipulated one way or the other. That is a fair reflection of the debates in the House of Commons, either in Committee or in any other of its many manifestations. My view is that if the Government feel that there are strong reasons against holding the referendum at the same time as the General Election, it should be put off for some considerable time.
If that is so, they must face the possibility that there could be a change of Government. That would be a very queer constitutional position, but I see no other way of facing the dilemma that we are in. Either we have the referendum at or near a General Election or we take the decision that, for good reasons which have been advanced, we cannot muddle the two together, and if it is no good having a referendum a fortnight afterwards, we must have it six months onwards. We must also face the fact that there will be a long gap between the passing of this Bill and its presentation to the people at large.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I have listened carefully to the Minister's assurance and to the opinions that have been expressed on both sides of the House about the new clause. It is clear to me that the Minister said that the General Election and the referendum shall not be held on the same date. That assurance has been given. Of course, if there are two different dates, there are two different campaigns.
I believe that a great deal of heavy weather is being made about the assurance which the Minister of State has given. I have heard several reasons advocated why some fixed time should be written into the Bill between the General Election on one hand and the referendum on the other.
One of the most important reasons why no such fixed time should be written


into the Bill has not been quoted. That is that if we fix a time—whether three months according to the new clause, or two months as has been suggested in a possible manuscript amendment—the actual date of the referendum could fall on a most unsuitable date for it to be conducted in Scotland.

Mr. James Lamond: Hogmanay.

Mr. Dempsey: I am coming to that. For example, it is not unusual for a General Election to be held at the beginning of October. That is not an unusual phenomenon for this country to indulge in from time to time. If we were to accept the new clause, and the referendum is held three months after the General Election, it means that if the General Election is held on 1st October the referendum would have to be held on 1st January—that is New Year's Day.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I would point out that the new clause says that
that referendum shall not be held until a period of three months has elapsed after the polling day of the ensuing general election.".
That does not mean that it shall be three months. It could be four, five or six months. But there is a three-month minimum period. Presumably, if there were an October General Election it would not mean that a referendum would be held on New Year's Day. The purpose of the new clause is that at least three months must elapse. That is an important point.

Mr. Dempsey: If that three months elapsed it is fair to interpret the new clause as meaning that the referendum should be held on that particular date. There is no doubt about that. If any English or Welsh Member has the foggiest idea of what happens in Scotland on 1st January, that is that last thing that he would suggest.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the referendum were to be held on Hogmanay, and the polling stations were to be kept open all night, we might have a record poll?

Mr. Dempsey: To use a Scottishism, "I hae me doots". If we were to have the poll on New Year's Day, we should have to carry on the customary tradition

and take a half-bottle in our pockets. In those circumstances, I imagine that more drinking would be done than voting.
I am trying to ensure that the referendum will be a success. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) went to great lengths to explain how the Scottish Council of the Labour Party had grave doubts about the purpose of this Assembly. He did not mention that it has also launched an appeal for a fighting fund with a view to campaigning for a "Yes" vote during the referendum campaign. It is therefore obvious to me that a hectic campaign will be conducted. It is hoped that there will be a very good turn-out and the Labour movement in Scotland hopes that the result will be "Yes" to the Assembly. That is our policy, apart from a few dissidents—if I can call them that with deep affection.
Surely, therefore, having regard to circumstances such as I have described, it would be unwise for the Minister to be talked into writing into the Bill a specific date on which the referendum should take place. In my opinion, it should be left to the good sense of the Minister and the Government to determine, as soon as possible after the General Election, the most suitable time for the holding of the referendum. By suitability I do not mean for the Minister or the Government. I mean suitable for the general public who we are hoping will vote very solidly during the campaign for the Assembly, when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Percy Grieve: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) obviously was terrified that this clause might compel the holding of the referendum to coincide with Hogmanay. But he was put right by one of his hon. Friends. The clause does no such thing. It prescribes a minimum.
The Minister of State has come a very long way to meeting the fears of right hon. and hon. Members. Will not he come the whole way, because the whole way is a very short way? As I see it, the clause prescribes a minimum of three months after the General Election, and I should have thought that that was an irreducible minimum, if only for the reasons which were strongly and cogently set forth by the hon. Member for West


Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It is vitally important that, when the referendum is held, it should be held undisturbed by any other political issue than the most important constitutional issue which this country has had to decide since the Act of Union, and it is important that that should be undisturbed by any other political considerations.
The Minister has met the argument that it would be inconceivable that the referendum should be held to coincide with the election itself. If that were to happen, not only would the issue of the setting up of an independent Assembly in Scotland be confused with all the other issues which are determined at the time of the General Election, but it would be embroiled in the campaign as well. If the campaigns coincided, that would prevent the dispassionate consideration of an issue which goes right across party lines in Scotland as it does in England and is, as I say, the most vitally important constitutional issue that the country has ever had to determine in its united form.
But the matter goes further than that. It goes beyond that in the sense that, when people have gone through the work, the pressures and the considerations of an important General Election campaign, they are for the moment surfeited by the whole subject of electioneering. They have had enough of it. It would be wholly wrong and certainly it would involve the danger of the matter not being properly considered and of an insufficient number of votes being cast if there were, almost immediately upon the conclusion of that election campaign, to be supervened a further campaign in connection with the referendum.
I suggest that it is for that reason that three months is really an irreducible minimum. It is not sufficient for the Government to say "Leave it to us. It will not be more than two months. We shall certainly not have it at the same time" This is a matter for Parliament to consider now. If Parliament believes in the cogency of these arguments, it should see that it is written into the Bill now that there shall be no referendum earlier than three months from the date of the General Election.
In effect, given a referendum campaign of a month, that means two months and,

as one Government supporter pointed out, first of all there is the fact that the newly elected Members of the new Parliament will have to settle down. They will have to deal with the aftermath of the General Election campaign, and that takes about a month. Then, if there were only a two months gap, they would have almost at once to campaign for the referendum.
That is really too soon, and I suggest that three months is an irreducible minimum. I hope that, if the Minister does not make this concession, the hon. Member for West Lothian and those right hon. and hon. Members who support the new clause will divide the House on it. I, for one, will support the clause, because I believe that it should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I think that the comments of the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) sufficiently poured ridicule on the amendment to enable the House to reject it fairly readily. He said that it could cause difficulty because it would set rigid time limits. If there were a General Election in the spring or the early summer, the referendum could have an impact on the holiday season. It could be held in July or August. If it were postponed too long, it might cause difficulty in Scotland. Again, if it were in winter time, three months after an October General Election, that would bring us into the months of January and February and the winter weather. I do not know whether many right hon. and hon. Members have suffered adverse weather conditions. In my area over the weekend we had 10 or 11 inches of snow. Traffic seized up in the city of Dundee, and the same was happening throughout a considerable part of Scotland, never mind the dreadful conditions in the Highlands the other week.
The Government are right to leave this on a fairly flexible basis. If they have made one mistake, it is that they have zealously concealed the proposed date for the General Election. If we knew that, we should understand when the referendum might take place. However, it is one of the secret weapons which the Government like to have, and I doubt whether they will volunteer that information.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) reminded the House how in the United States of


America elections and referendums frequently were combined. However, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that it would introduce an unwelcome precedent even though he had supported the 40 per cent. provision, which was also an unwelcome precedent. Apparently, he is prepared to legislate for his own wishes but not otherwise.
Right hon. and hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If it were put to me whether it was good or bad psychology or in the interests of my party or otherwise to have an immediate election and a referendum, I should not be able to say one way or the other. However, some right hon. and hon. Members are terrified of fighting a single issue campaign during a General Election, and perhaps their estimation is one that we should bear in mind.
If there were a combined referendum-cum-General Election, there would be a saving of £2 million, which could be used for other valuable purposes. However, that is departing somewhat from the subject of the new clause, because the Minister has given certain assurances about it, and, if the Government double-back on them, it may be difficult for them to explain. So I think we should accept the Minister's assurances and hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian, even at this late stage, will for once see sense and withdraw his motion.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Whichever side of the new clause right hon. and hon. Members may be on, the common ground is that we all want this to be a successful referendum in terms of turn-out. Neither the "No" nor the "Yes" schools want to see the answer obtained from a 30 per cent., a 40 per cent. or even a 50 per cent. poll.
It seems to me that, on the face of it, the simplest way to get over the difficulty about the date of the referendum is to look at Schedule 17, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) suggested and to write into the Bill a specific date on which the referendum should take place. Some might like it earlier than others. It is difficult when one is trying to substitute a particular date for "such day" already in Schedule 17.
5.30 p.m.
Some people might believe that St. Andrew's Day, which I believe is 30th November, might be suitable, but once again there are difficulties. It is very difficult to find a suitable day. A number of hon. Members have said that the summer holidays create problems. The sad fact is that it is hard to find any day when the Scots are not celebrating something or the other.
It is important that there should be a clear gap between the referendum and the General Election. I am glad that the Government accept that. Nothing could be more disastrous than the suggestion by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that both the referendum and the General Election should take place on the same day. Nothing could be more absurd. The referendum is on a constitutional issue and the decision will be taken on an entirely different premise than the decision in a General Election.
If we had the two combined and there was a 67 per cent. poll, which is quite likely in a General Election, the decision on the referendum could be taken by the very narrowest of margins even given a 33⅓—33⅔ per cent. division of the voting, which in any case is not a very large margin. It is quite clear that there will need to be a substantial gap between the General Election and a referendum but difficulties arise when we try to introduce a particular day into the Bill.
The Prime Minister might decide that sometime in October or November might be a suitable time to go to the country—

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) agree that three months is a reasonable minimum because it allows one month after the election and one month for the following campaign? It is not obligatory on the Government to make it three months. They could make it four, five or six months—whatever they like.

Mr. Roberts: I am not enamoured of stipulating any wide gap of this sort. The most important thing is that the Prime Minister must have his right to choose General Election day without any barriers or any feelings that he is choosing a particular date which will affect the result of the referendum. I know that he


does not want to prejudice the referendum result by having a close General Election.
Even if the referendum were before the General Election the upsurge of the campaign would cause a high turn-out and immediately afterwards there would be a falling off of interest for the General Election. This is a very difficult problem.
I believe that there should be some attempt to introduce a specified date into the Bill but I am not enamoured of stipulating the interval because it creates too many problems for the Prime Minister. The most important single thing is that the Prime Minister should have absolute choice for his General Election date.

Mr. Channon: I think that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) really agrees with most of us. There seems to be common ground among all hon. Members, with the exception of those from the Scottish National Party, that we do not want the General Election linked with the referendum. It is also fairly common ground that the referendum should not be held shortly after the General Election either.
The new clause of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) calls for a minimum period of three months between the General Election and the referendum. In any case the date would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is possible to argue that the referendum could be held two months after the General Election, but to have it any time short of two months makes a mockery of the assurances given by the Minister of State this afternoon.
The gap between us and the Minister of State is important, although fairly narrow. If he wants to preserve the flexibility of saying that the best possible time to have the referendum is within three months of a General Election, can he at least say that he would not have it within two months, because this is the barest minimum possible to have it after a General Election. For a start, there would have to be a regrouping of the organisations fighting the referendum. There would be cross-party groupings with people in the same party taking different views about the referendum. There must be some time for preparation. I cannot understand why the Government should hesitate to say that it is not their intention to have a refer-

endum within two months of the General Election.
It is possible that it could be held before an election and if so the issue does not arise. But, if there were a. General Election in October, as seems possible, the idea of holding the referendum before Christmas is farcical. If the General Election were postponed until the spring, I do not think that the Government would want the referendum to be held within two months of it.
I would have thought that we could come to a happy conclusion on this matter if the Government would give some assurances. Even if they will not write this provision into the Bill, I, and I am sure many other hon. Members, would settle for a manuscript amendment, if it could be accepted, saying that the referendum would not be held within two months of a General Election. I am sure that such an amendment would have the widespread agreement of the House. The Government could give these assurances without prejudicing the right to call a General Election when they wished. I would have thought that this was a small step to take, and if the Minister of State could settle it I am sure that the agreement of the House would be overwhelming.

Mr. Gow: Although the gap between the Government Front Bench and the new clause is very narrow, this debate has not been unnecessary. When the Minister of State courteously intervened early in the debate had he given the assurances that the Government would not arrange the referendum within two months of the date of the General Election, I suspect that the motion would have been withdrawn.
However, as the debate has gone on I have the impression that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would not have been right to withdraw it. The more we reflect on the story of Governments in this country the more we realise that even if the Minister of State—a man of scrupulous honour and fairness—gave an assurance that there would be no referendum within two months of a General Election, there would be no guarantee that this would hold good if he were no longer a member of the Administration. Under pressure from other Ministers that undertaking might not be carried out.
I believe that the House must have a legislative safeguard built in as an ultimate protection that there will be a minimum gap of two months. I do not think that in the current climate it would be right for the House of Commons to rely on ministerial assurances of two months even if these were forthcoming—and all the signs are that they will not be forthcoming.
The arguments in favour of a minimum gap of three months or two months are absolutely overwhelming. It is regrettable that the Government have not responded to what clearly is the mood of the House on this issue. If the Minister of State is not prepared to take account of the feelings expressed almost universally in almost every other part of the House, with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) who made an incomprehensible speech, he surely must go some way to meet the almost unanimous view on this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: The speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was not incomprehensible at all. It is in the interests of the SNP that this should happen.

Mr. Cow: Incomprehensible in the sense that it was clear that the hon. Gentleman had not read the new clause. He was advancing a wholly different case from that put by the hon. Member for West Lothian.
If the Government have any sensitivity on this matter and are prepared to respond to the mood which has been expressed almost universally on this matter, they should give way. It is a matter of great regret that the Minister is not prepared to make this concession. This debate could have been avoided if the Government had thought through the referendum issue. It was clear from the Minister's intervention a little earlier that the Government had not thought through the timetable and what will be involved in the referendum.
There are ten ministerial names on the back of this Bill as the hon. Members who are presenting the measure to the House of Commons. Two of those Members now occupy the Treasury Bench. For a short time we even had the intermittent

presence of the Lord Advocate. Indeed, I see that he has now returned to the Treasury Front Bench, and therefore we have three Ministers with us for this debate. Often it appears that the Cabinet has been too busy with other matters to think through this subject. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will make short speeches and enable the genii on the Treasury Front Bench to reflect on the matter. This will give Ministers the opportunity to take these matters into account.
I appeal to the Minister of State to deal with this important matter in his reply, particularly as he now has the advantage of the presence of the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish to intervene briefly. Since there is so little between the arguments advanced on both sides, I do not intend to repeat them. I believe that the period of three months as set out in New Clause No. 1 is too long. I would favour a period nearer two months. However, one month is too short a period because we want to see some respite between the two campaigns.
If the Government accept that they had no intention of allowing the two campaigns to coincide, surely it is in the best interests of progress to write into the Bill what that means in terms of length of time. As one who is sympathetic to the Minister of State on this matter, I believe that it is against the interests of the House not to write in this provision. I am left with the awful feeling that, however good the Government's intentions, they are admitting that in certain circumstances those intentions may be breached. I find that a worrying factor. I cannot envisage circumstances in which it would be necessary for those intentions to be breached.
5.45 p.m.
Why on earth cannot the Government accept a time limit? It is ridiculous to have a division between the Government Front Bench and the majority of the House on this narrow matter. There are many other much more important matters to be debated in this short period on Report. I accept that there may be difficulties in bringing in an amendment at this stage, but if the Minister is prepared to say that he will introduce in the other place an amendment to put this matter into legislative form, I would accept that


assurance. I should be delighted to see this matter set out in legislative form, because I believe that would be in the interests of the House.

Mr. Benyon: I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). When the Minister intervened a little earlier, I thought that we were getting somewhere and that we were about to be given a little more by the Government that would satisfy us on this matter, but that has not proved to be the case.
It has been said that it would rarely happen that the two events might coincide or be close. I do not agree. This is a difficulty which the Government face. It is not the difficulties of the referendum that worry them but flexibility in respect of a General Election. That is the main bugbear facing the Government. Once both Houses of Parliament have given their seal of approval to a referendum, it must go forward. If in that period the Prime Minister wishes to call a General Election, it would be extremely restricted.
However, there must be a form of words that would get round this situation. There is no doubt that opinion in the House is unanimous on this issue, except for the views expressed by the SNP. Therefore, the matter should go to another place and we should be given an undertaking that it will be returned to us with the inclusion of the suggested provisions.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the point about a General Election being announced before a referendum is held is already covered by the clause? The clause begins:
If Parliament is dissolved before a referendum has been held in pursuance of section 80 of this Act, that referendum shall not be held until a period of three months has elapsed after the polling day of the ensuing general election.

Mr. Benyon: I am not sure that that does cover the matter. I believe that it would be very restrictive, and I do not see the Government giving an undertaking to hold a referendum on such and such a date and suddenly having to put the matter off. I appreciate the Government's difficulties.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister says that this is wrong and I am prepared to be

told that that is the case. This was the advice I had from the learned Clerks. If I am wrong, I am prepared to be told so.

Mr. Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right in the way in which his new clause is drafted, but the fact is that if the referendum had to be cancelled, it would restrict the Government in political terms. I understand that situation and many agree with me. However, I am saying that the Government should respond to the view of the House, which is almost unanimous, that this matter should be taken to another place and then brought back here so that we can consider it more rationally.

Mr. John Stokes: I support previous speakers. On the first day of the Report stage I am once again worried, troubled and alarmed by every implication of the Bill. It is clear that the full implications of the referendum have not been thought out by the Government or properly discussed by the House. Introducing into our constitution new concepts such as referendums will cause endless confusion if they are interspersed between elections to the Assembly and United Kingdom General Elections.
I have always opposed referendums. Until recently, they were unknown in our constitution, and they are a threat to this House and to parliamentary government. If we are to have a referendum, we should at least ensure in the Bill that it does not interfere with our normal constitutional life and our General Elections.
A three-month gap is perfectly reasonable, though I would settle for a two-month gap. I thought for one brief, exciting moment that the Government were about to agree with that, but I now have no confidence in their unwritten assurances. We must have safeguards written into the Bill.
If the Bill is passed, the referendum will appear to offer to the Scottish people something like the special offers we see in our supermarkets. It will imply that there is some sort of bargain to be had or even something for nothing. We shall have all sorts of unscrupulous propaganda that will exaggerate the benefits of the Bill and all sorts of false hopes and expectations will be aroused.
It is important to ensure that this dangerous hullabaloo at the time of the referendum is kept separate from the more sober General Election campaign. We know that one party will be campaigning not only for the Bill but for complete independence for Scotland, and that will make the referendum a most dangerous and damaging event in our constitutional history. It is vital that the sense of the House should be confirmed in the Bill and that there should be a legal gap between a General Election and a referendum in Scotland.

Mr. Pym: The discussion of the new clause has been typical of our debates on the Bill. Whenever we have picked up a new aspect, we have found within half an hour or so that the issues are considerably more significant and profound than many hon. Members had appreciated.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put the case for separating the campaigns extremely well. It has been a characteristic of all our debates that the more we have probed the Minister, the more apparent it has become that we are dealing with an important matter of principle. The new principle this time relates to the referendum, particularly if it is held in an election year.
Even the Minister of State has agreed with all the other speakers in the debate. Normally he is the only person who defends his position. This time, he has been helpful in indicating that the Government do not wish the referendum and a General Election to be held on the same day or the campaigns to coincide. That is very much the sense of what the House wants.
The Minister has been criticised by various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), for not having thought through this matter. He may deny that, but if he has thought it through, he has not indicated clearly his conclusions except to state the simple proposition that the referendum and a General Election should not take place on the same day.
I feel even more strongly than I did in Committee that it is unfortunate that we should be discussing this matter in the context of the Bill and not in the general

context of referendums. There is a danger, which ha worried the House, that a decision on dates may be taken as a matter of expediency rather than as a matter of principle.
The Minister indicated clearly that both Houses can control the date of the referendum, but we cannot control the date of a General Election. I do not see anything in the new clause that might fetter the Prime Minister in his choice of a day for the General Election except the embarrassment that he would suffer from having to cancel the referendum. It is right that the Prime Minister should be unrestricted in that choice, but the House wants to know how we can ensure that what the Minister of State has told us will be fulfilled.
The new clause is reasonably modest. It makes clear that after a General Election there cannot be a referendum until a gap of three months has elapsed. If there is a referendum before a General Election, there need be a gap of only one month. For example, if it were proposed to hold the referendum on 28th September, the Prime Minister could not propose the dissolution of Parliament at any time in September before the 28th, but he could do so on 29th. If he wanted to propose the dissolution earlier in September, the referendum would be ruled out.
Logic is on the side of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in saying that there should be a wider gap and that six months would be more appropriate. I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's amendments, but the hon. Member for West Lothian wanted to be more modest and to put forward a proposal involving the minimum degree of restriction.
In the absence of a much more specific and clear undertaking from the Government on dates and on their intention to insert such a provision into the Bill in another place, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause because, in the absence of satisfactory undertakings by the Government, it would be right for the House to vote upon this matter.
It would be much more helpful, particularly in the spirit of what the Minister of State said at the start of our debate,


if he could undertake to insert into the Bill a provision that the House would accept, even if that fell short of the new clause. I hope that he will reply and allay the anxieties of all Members on this subject, which is of utmost importance.

Mr. John Smith: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to some of the points made in the debate. Before turning to the main point, may I deal with the amendments of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) which are being discussed with this group? They raise a slightly different point and, with respect to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was arguing for a six-month gap between the referendum and a General Election. His amendments relate to the regular elections to the Assembly, and he is seeking a six-month gap between those and any General Election.
The Bill allows a two-month gap either way for the Secretary of State. It is a matter of judgment whether a six-month gap is better than the provision of four months—two months either way. With the four months provision, the Secretary of State would have the flexibility that he needs to avoid an unfortunate coincidence between Assembly elections and a General Election which, in certain circumstances, might be undesirable.
That was one of the purposes of providing that flexibility. There is not a great deal between the hon. Member for Fife, East and myself on this matter, but if there were a six-month gap, starting from a date in the summer, one could be running deep into the winter, and there are obvious practical difficulties about having elections in the depth of winter in Scotland, as we can appreciate all too vividly at present.
In addition, there is the problem that registers are out of date at certain times of the year. In the Government's judgment, six months is probably too long. However, I accept that this is a matter of judgment. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Fife, East wishes to pursue the matter any further.

6.0 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The referendum will be held on cross-party lines and, therefore, an Assembly election would

not be affected in the same way as a General Election. It is difficult for people to go into a party political election in a shorter period than six months. That is the argument on which I rest. If the House thinks that four months is long enough, my amendment is not necessary.

Mr. Smith: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. It may be that the referendum to be held when the Bill becomes an Act will be a cross-party matter. There are certain signs of that. I am not clear whether that makes a great deal of difference electorally in the House or to political attitudes. We do not have a great deal of experience in these matters from which to draw profound conclusions.

Mr. Pym: Surely that is an overwhelming case for separating the campaigns. It is precisely because there will be a cross-party element in the referendum campaign that it is vital to separate the referendum campaign from the General Election campaign.

Mr. Smith: I thought that I had accepted that argument. I thought that I had made that clear in an earlier intervention. That is one of the complicating factors that I tried to pull out of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as one of the logical parts that had sense and weight behind it.
I thought carefully before I intervened in the earlier debate. I think that I was able to give clear and categorical assurances. At that time I hoped that the debate would come to an end earlier, bearing in mind that there are some other important matters to be discussed. I am disappointed by the outcome. We have had a fairly lengthy debate, but it is for the House to decide how long it takes.
It has been proposed in the debate that there should be a two-month gap. I cannot commit the Government to put forward such a proposition in another place. The proposition before the House is that there should be at least a three-month gap. It is interesting to note that no one has put forward the case for setting a maximum time. As matters stand, a Government could delay holding the referendum for a certain period. The maximum-time proposition has not been advanced.
The Government will take careful account of the views that have been expressed in the House. It has been a useful debate as it has allowed hon. Members to express their views on what would be a suitable period between a General Election and a referendum. I must stress that the House itself has the opportunity to to decide the date of the referendum. I know that that still leaves open the date of a General Election. All I can say about a General Election is that one is likely to be held before 22nd October 1979. No one can go further than that.

Mr. Russell Johnston: When the Minister of State says that he will take careful account of what hon. Members have said, does that mean that he is taking what has been said into careful account without commitment but with regard to the possibility that some change might be introduced in another place—in other words, not ruling that out—or is he saying that he will take into account what has been said when the Government reach their conclusion in a practical sense when the time comes?

Mr. Smith: I think that the Government should consider what has been said in the debate and study it carefully.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Surely they always do.

Mr. Smith: In this instance, we shall give even more careful study than we normally give to the proceedings of the House.
I would not rule out the Government doing anything in another place. On the other hand, it would be wrong of me to indicate that we might take that course. It is most unfortunate if hon. Members are induced to withdraw propositions that they might otherwise put forward because of an assurance that a Minister appears to give. We must be clear cut. I am not making such an assurance on this occasion.
As I have said, we shall take careful account of future progress. The matter may be aired in another place. It has been rightly said that the Government have to put a date before the House. We shall take careful account of what has been said before coming forward with that date.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I want to be quite clear on what the Minister has said about the Government putting forward a date. If in July they put forward a date that projects into a time when they find it necessary to call a General Election, that makes for a difficulty on which we have had no reassurance. Surely that is the main difficulty that might arise.

Mr. Smith: I think that the right hon. Lady knows that I do not know the date of the next General Election. Even if I did, I should not be handing it around in the House. However, if that sequence of events took place and a proposition was put forward in July, that is one of the factors that might move the right hon. Lady to vote against the proposed date. The date of the referendum has to be approved by this place and another place.
The right hon. Lady could err on the side of caution and vote against the proposed date. She could say that to be quite clear about it there should be a different date and that there must be some element of flexibility. I think that the House is being a little unfair in trying to pin us down to a period of three months.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that the Minister of State grasps the full meaning of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). We could debate in July an order for the referendum, and when that debate was completed the Prime Minister could go to the Palace and ask for the dissolution of Parliament and request a General Election. In so doing, he could ask for a date of which the House had no knowledge—indeed, there would be no reason for it to have such knowledge. That could be done at the time that the House approved the order. Surely that situation is utterly unreasonable. It is because of that that many of my hon. Friends are thoroughly suspicious about what is in the Government's mind.

Mr. Smith: I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman has used that form of words. It may be that he was carried away with the heat of the argument. The hon. Gentleman has no right to be suspicious of the Government's intentions. I intervened early in the debate to deal with the issue clearly. At the time I


thought that the House had accepted what I said in my intervention. The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat patronising in saying that I appeared not to grasp the argument of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). I made much earlier in the debate the point that he has just made. I said to the right hon. Lady that if she had doubts she could vote against the proposed date if it arises in July.

Mr. Pym: I ask the Minister of State for the assurance that he and his right hon. Friend the Lord President will convey personally to the Prime Minister the sense of the debate and the unanimous view that has been expressed, that there should be a gap between the two campaigns. The Government agree about separate campaigns. Will the hon. Gentleman convey the sense of the debate to the Prime Minister? It is the right hon. Gentleman's right, which no one wishes to fetter, to choose the date of a General Election. We wish the Prime Minister to be informed of the view that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Smith: I can give the assurance that the Prime Minister will be informed. I believe that it is the Prime Minister's custom to read Hansard carefully. Of course, to read it carefully does not mean that one has to read it all. It is possible to read with care without being comprehensive.

Mr. Tim Renton: There are more hon. Members in the Chamber now than when the debate began. That being so, I ask the hon. Gentleman precisely what assurance he has given. If I am right, he has merely said that the referendum date will not coincide with the General Election date. He is not defining those words any further. In fact, the referendum date could be within days of the General Election date. Is that correct?

Mr. Smith: I am not adding further to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman knows that I made the matter clear in an earlier intervention. He seeks to pursue the matter in a way that I find offensive.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I would have the right to vote against the date that is suggested, but surely there would be

no reason to do so. Strangely enough, like the hon. Gentleman, I would not know the date of the General Election. Therefore in July, in a perfectly straightforward fashion, the appropriate date for the referendum would come forward in September or October. But the Prime Minister still has the right to call a General Election, which could be called upon a date within days or a couple of weeks of the date fixed for the referendum. Will the Minister explain what would then happen?

Mr. Smith: That is a matter that the right hon. Lady could take into account when asked to cast her vote.

Miss Harvie Anderson: No.

Mr. Smith: I must be allowed to explain this matter. The right hon. Lady could say that it was unreasonable to ask the House to approve a date without knowing what was to happen in November.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister, when considering the choice of the date for a General Election, would be anxious, if at all possible, not to change an already agreed referendum date as, judging by my hon. Friend's belief about the Scottish viewpoint, that could be embarrassing to the Government in Scotland anyway?

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will doubtless take many matters into account when choosing the date of the next election; but it will be his decision alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Can-nock (Mr. Roberts) in an interesting speech, said that it was important to have a specified date, not a specified period. That is an important distinction. I assure him that there will be a specified date. Although that is not written into the Bill, paragraphs 11 and 21 of Schedule 17 read together mean that the Government must bring forward a proposition for a date and have it approved by both Houses of Parliament. I think that that probably meets my hon. Friend's point.
I assure the House that we shall take careful account of the views that have been expressed and the way in which hon. Members have tried to grapple seriously with the problem. I cannot recommend that we fix an arbitrary and inflexible


three months date. It would be unwise to do that. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the new clause.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Anderson) could discuss and take into account the possible date of a General Election when considering the date of the referendum in a motion which was brought before the House. Surely that is not possible. First, neither my right hon. Friend nor the Minister would know the date of a General Election. If the Minister knew it, he would not divulge it. That would be improper, because to bring such a consideration into one of our debates would be an infringement of the Prerogative.

Mr. Smith: I do not know that it would be an infringement of the Prerogative. It is common for the possible date of an election to be discussed in the House. Indeed, there is hardly a debate on a matter of politically topical importance in which the date of the next General Election is not freely discussed. The Prerogative is in almost daily danger if the right hon. Gentleman's proposition is correct.
I have given a clear assurance on the main issue that concerned the House. I gave that assurance at an earlier stage. Unfortunately, it led to a long debate. However, long though the debate may have been, it has allowed us to air the matter. I assure the House that the Government will pay careful attention to what has been said. However, I must advise the House not to accept the new clause.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to put on record that I personally believe that the Government's intentions, as stated on 14th

February, are entirely honourable. The trouble is that circumstances can alter. The Minister of State said that election times can be awkward. That is precisely the issue. There will be mounting pressures. Timetables are very awkward. The new clause caters for such problems.

It is all very well to say that the House takes the final decision, but that final decision will be in helter-skelter circumstances. We can imagine the scenario in July when many matters will be on Member's minds It will be easy for the House to take a decision in hasty circumstances—a decision which later some of us might regret.

I should have been more reluctant than I am to press this matter to a Division had the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) been taken up. It is well known that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on few matters on this whole topic, but on this issue it seemed reasonable to ask for a commitment that a proposition would be brought forward in another place. That suggestion was rejected.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State pleaded for flexibility. Frankly, I want some rigidity on this narrow issue. I want rigidity because it will be all too easy for Governments who have good intentions in February to succumb to temptations in the late summer.

The Minister said that the Government must not be pinned down. I think that the House of Commons should seek to pin the Government down to certain matters. That is why I hope that there will be a decision by the House on this matter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 223.

Division No. 110]
AYES
[6.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Body, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Michael
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Bulmer, Esmond


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bottomley, Peter
Carlisle, Mark


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Kenneth
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Channon, Paul


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brittan, Leon
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cockroft, John


Benyon, W.
Brooke, Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brotherton, Michael
Cope, John


Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.




Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dalyell, Tam
Jopling, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Dodsworth Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhodes James, R.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunlop, John
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lawson, Nigel
Rooker, J. W.


Eyre, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Farr, John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury, Tim


Flannery, Martin
Lloyd, Ian
Sandelson, Neville


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Madel, David
Spearing, Nigel


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart, David


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint
Trotter, Neville


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Urwin, T. W.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
Wakeham, John


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony
Weatherill, Bernard


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
Wells, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parker, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hurd, Douglas
Parkinson, Cecil
Younger, Hon George


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pattie, Geoffrey



James, David
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Percival, Ian
Mr. James Lamond and


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Mr. Ioan Evans.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Campbell, Ian


Anderson, Donald
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boardman, H.
Cant, R. B.


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Carmichael, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carter, Ray


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Cartwright, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Castle, RI Hon Barbara


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clemitson, Ivor


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Buchan, Norman
Cohen, Stanley


Bates, Alf
Buchanan, Richard
Coleman, Donald


Bean, R. E.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Concannon, Rt Hon John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)







Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Crawford, Douglas
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sever, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Deakins, Eric
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
MacCormick, Iain
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Eadie, Alex
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spriggs, Leslie


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ennals, Rt Hon David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackintosh, John P.
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thompson, George


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Gould, Bryan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tomlinson, John


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tuck, Raphael


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Ward, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Abervon)
Watkins, David


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Roland
Watkinson, John


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watt, Hamish


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald king
Weetch, Ken


Henderson, Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Hooley, Frank
Noble, Mike
Welsh, Andrew


Harem, John
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodall, Alec


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Radice, Giles
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)



Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Ted Graham and


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. A. W. Stallard.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

CONTENTS OF ORDERS UNDER SECTION 44(2)

'When laying a draft order before the House of Commons under section 44(2) of this Act the Secretary of State shall also lay before the House a calculation setting out a comparison of the proposed resources per capita which would be available as a result of the approval of the draft order for expenditure by the Scottish Executive for purposes falling within

devolved matters in the year in question, with the resources per capita provided for that year for such purposes in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following:
Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, at end insert
'comparable expenditures within Scotland and England and Wales, respectively, of non-devolved services and a calculation of the oil


revenues available to the Treasury and National Oil Account arising from the Scottish sector of the North Sea, such revenues comprising royalties, petroleum revenue tax, corporation tax and expected profits from the Scottish operations of the British National Oil Corporation'.
New Clause 3—(Financial considerations affecting orders under section 44(2))—
'In deciding on the draft order to be laid before the House under section 44(2) of this Act the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to ensure that in each financial year the resources per capita available for expenditure by the Scottish Executive for purposes falling within devolved matters shall not be less than the resources per capita provided for that year for the same purposes in England and Wales.'
Amendment No. 43, Clause 44, in page 22, line 28, at end insert—
'Provided that in deciding on the draft order to be laid before the House he shall have regard to the need to ensure that in each financial year the resources per capita available for expenditure by the Scottish Executive for purposes falling within devolved matters shall be not less than the resources per capita provided for that year for such purposes in England and Wales'.
Amendment No. 44, Clause 44, in page 22, line 33, at end insert—
'and a calculation setting out a comparison of the proposed resources per capita for the year in question which would be available as a result of the approval of the draft order for expenditure by the Scottish Executive for purposes falling within devolved matters, with the resources per capita provided for that year for such purposes in England and Wales.'

Mr. Brittan: We on this side of the House have consistently argued—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will right hon. Members who do not desire to hear New Clause 2 being debated kindly withdraw quietly?

Mr. Brittan: As I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we on this side of the House have consistently argued that the basic objection to the Scotland Bill as a whole is that it is likely to lead to conflict and to create problems for which it provides no solution. One of the major areas of conflict lies in the financial arrangements set up by the Bill to create an Assembly financed only by a block grant, which creates a structure that is unstable from its inception.
It is a scandal that in Committee we had no opportunity to debate the bulk of

the financial arrangements, and in particular the clause dealing with the block grant, which is the sole source of revenue of an assured kind, for the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive. It is to ensure that the House should at least have some limited opportunity to discuss this vital matter that we have tabled these new clauses and amendments. They are designed to ensure that in considering the block grant, when it comes before the House in due course, the House should at least have before it some small part of the essential information needed to consider the adequacy or otherwise of the Government's proposals for the size of the block grant.
If these new clauses and amendments—and they are really alternatives—are made part of the Bill they will not render satisfactory a wholly unsatisfactory financial system, but at least in debating these new clauses, and if we pass them, we shall be forcing ourselves to face the realities of the Government's proposed financial arrangements for the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive.
The unsatisfactory nature of those proposals has been widely accepted and commented on, and, in view of subsequent developments, perhaps it is right that I should quote, as the most succinct statement of the inadequate nature of the Government's arrangements for the financing of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive, the words used by the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House on 13th December 1976. He said:
To have representation without taxation, and to have the block grant principle decided at Westminster, is a recipe for conflict."—[Official Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1020.]
That was the view of the Leader of the Liberal Party on 13th December 1976, and it seems to me that, although his view may have changed, the correct analysis of the situation in that remark remains a correct one with which we wholeheartedly agree.
To remedy the deficiencies of the financing of the operations of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive by a block grant various alternatives have been put forward and have been considered by this House. In particular, a lengthy debate took place, one of the few on the financial provisions, on a


scheme for a measure of taxation power to be granted to the Assembly. It was put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). That scheme was overwhelmingly rejected by the House.
The Government, in one of their later White Papers, analysed the various alternative forms of tax which the Assembly could be given power to raise and put forward what they regarded as insuperable obstacles and objections to any of those forms of taxation. The Government have left the matter somewhat in the air, saying that in principle they have no objection to the Scottish Assembly having a revenue-raising power, but that they have not been able to devise a satisfactory form of such power and will listen, as and when the Assembly is created, to any suggestions put forward by the Assembly itself.
That seems to us to be a negation of responsibility, in the sense that, if the Government are really closing the door on taxation powers, they should do so in a cleaner and more forthright way. To say "We shall listen to proposals", giving the impression of open-mindedness, when the White Paper that analysed all the proposals put forward rejects them all, is, perhaps, a less candid approach.
In any event, at the moment we are left with the block grant. It is right that the House should consider the matter on the basis that the block grant is the sole method of financing the Assembly and the Executive. What is the disadvantage and the difficulty over the block grant system that lead many of us to regard it as being one of the major disadvantages of the Bill and one of the major areas of potential conflict if an Assembly were to be created?
The position as we see it is that in the first year of operation of the block grant system there is a viable method of deciding the size of the grant without acute political controversy, because it is possible to compare the expenditure on devolved services in the previous year when the Scottish Assembly was not in existence; to look at that and derive from it a fair figure for the first year of the Assembly's operations, taking into account any major developments that may have taken place on the economic or social side of the policy, and updating

that figure based on the adjustment made the previous year for the needs of Scotland.
When we come to the second, third and fourth year of the operation of the block grant system the disadvantages and difficulties and the potentiality for conflict become very much greater. What is the system we are operating? By definition it is one in which, within the total of the block grant, the Assembly and Executive have the power to decide how to apportion the allocation of resources according to their own adjustments and priorities. They may decide to spend more on schools and less on hospitals. They may decide to spend more on a particular type of hospital and less on another type. When that happens the situation at the end of the year will inevitably be, if the Assembly has exercised the discretion vested in it, that there will be disparities between Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and disparities between Scotland and England.
Inevitably, when the block grant comes to be renegotiated there will be clarion cries in Scotland saying, for example, according to the way in which the discretion has been exercised, that the standard of nursery education in Scotland has fallen way behind that in England, that the provision of mental health care has fallen way behind, or whatever it is that the Assembly may have decided to spend less money on. There will be demands to the effect that, in calculating the block grant for the coming year, the position should be altered and more money provided to take account of those services where standards have fallen below the standards set in England.
If that happens, I suggest that the answer that will come from those at the negotiating table on the United Kingdom side, to the effect that such disparities have been caused because the Scottish Assembly has chosen to spend its money on other things, whereby it is providing higher levels and standards than in England, would not prove acceptable to those in Scotland who will be anxious above all to put forward a case that any inadequacies are based upon the meanness of the United Kingdom Treasury, of the United Kingdom Parliament. Such voices will say that the only way to ensure that Scotland has a fair share of what it is entitled to is either to give


it taxing powers or to make it independent. Those voices will be greatly assisted by the argument, which will be readily available, that more should be provided for the block grant, relying on those services where standards have fallen below those in England because of the deliberate decision of the Assembly not to accord priorities in those directions.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In presenting his argument the hon. Gentleman is assuming that the negotiations on the block grant will be annual. Will he take into account in further presenting his argument the fact that the Government have already said that they are favourably disposed to the possibility of negotiating the block grant over a period of time equivalent to the life of the Assembly—in other words, four years?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I was about to make that point. I shall be taking it into account.
The position I have described is one in which the Scottish National Party and those who will seek to foment dissent and discord between Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole will be provided in the negotiations for the block grant with a golden opportunity to do so, an opportunity which they simply could not fail to use to good effect. That is the disadvantage of the block grant system.
When that state of affairs arises there will also be arguments raised from the English side of the negotiations, arguments which we deeply regret having to contemplate but which will most certainly be raised. At the moment the position is that the per capita expenditure on devolved services within Scotland is far higher than the comparable expenditure in Wales and in England. In an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) the last available figures demonstrating the position, according to the Chancellor, were as follows: £360 per head for Scotland, £320 per head for Wales and £280 per head for England. This is a discrepancy amounting to 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. in total; or, put another way, £500 million more is spent on Scotland than, on a per capita basis, one would have expected.
As long as we have a United Kingdom Government operating through a United

Kingdom Parliament with the allocation of resources on the basis of need as assessed by a single Government and approved by a single United Kingdom Parliament, not only are such discrepancies acceptable; they are thoroughly defensible and perfectly desirable. This is because the people of the United Kingdom as a whole are anxious and ready to give money to the various parts of the United Kingdom, to which those parts are properly entitled on the basis of need. Once we set up a separate Scottish Assembly and a separate Scottish Executive in which there is a different Government negotiating with the United Kingdom Government for the allocation of resources it is asking rather more of humanity than can reasonably be expected to believe that those in England will fail to notice what, up to now, they may not have noticed—namely, the greater expenditure per head on Scotland.
It is also asking too much to imagine that there will not be many voices in England that will be raised saying "This is unfair. Why should we give the Scots more per head?". People will ask this particularly since, as will undoubtedly be the case, the Scottish Executive and the Assembly will be arguing for still more sums because of the lower standards in some areas which, by their policies, they will have created.
There will be conflict at both ends. There will be conflict within Scotland because of the clamant call for greater amounts of money from England to take account of the fact that the Scottish Assembly has exercised the powers granted to it. There will be conflict also because of the clamour from England, because, with England facing a Scottish Government making claims for Scotland, it will inevitably sit up and take note of the fact that greater sums per head have been spent in the past in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I do not make reference, and neither do the new clauses or the amendments, to comparisons with Northern Ireland, because it seems to me that Northern Ireland is in a separate and special situation now, particularly as we do not know whether the constitutional structure at present operating will continue to do so, or for how long.
We recognise that, and would not wish in this argument to involve any improper


and false assumptions about the future of Northern Ireland. We do so not in any sense failing to recognise the special needs of Northern Ireland.
The comparison between Scotland and the United Kingdom will inevitably be made. We say that, if that comparison is to be made, it should at least be written into the system that when the House of Commons considers the block grant the comparable expenditure between Scotland and the United Kingdom ought to be written in as a formula. That is why we have referred to the calculation setting out a comparison of the proposed resources that would be available as a result of the approval of the draft block grant order compared with the resources provided for the comparable year for England and Wales.
This is in no sense, I hasten to add, an expression of a desire on our part to reduce the money available to Scotland. It is a recognition of the fact that, if we are going along this path, it is necessary for the House to know what it is doing, and to be presented in a succinct form with the facts that are relevant; of which this provision forms a part, although not the whole.
This negotiation, whether we like it or not, will be extremely tricky. It was described in an earlier White Paper as a tricky one. Paragraph 100 of the 1975 White Paper states:
No neat formula could be devised to produce fair shares for Scotland and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland) in varying circumstances from year to year. The task involves judgments of great complexity and political sensitivity.
If we are asking for judgments of that kind to be made in the context of a Scottish Assembly and Executive, which will inevitably be driven to clamour for more, it becomes clear why we regard this aspect of the Bill as a major source of conflict.
There is no neat formula, but the Government have made certain suggestions. It is interesting that none of those suggestions referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is to be found in the Bill.
One of the suggestions was that provision should be made for the block grant to be assessed over a four-year period and not annually. I can understand why that does not appear in the Bill, because there are other problems

posed by that, and which are not answered. What happens if the Westminster Government want to reduce public expenditure altogether? If the Conservative Party is in power that is certainly possible. A Labour Government might want to increase public expenditure. Are there to be supplementary block grants or reductions in the block grant? Is the Scottish Assembly to pay the money back?
If the money were fixed over a four-year period the complications and difficulties would be even greater. We in this House know all too well how difficult it is to assess the financial prospects for a 12-month period. To do it for a 48-month period is asking a lot. It sits nicely in a White Paper as something to tempt successfully the hon. Member for Inverness and his right hon. and hon. Friends, to wean them away from the more clear-cut view expressed in the quotation that I have read. It reads nicely there, but even this Government were sufficiently cautious and wise not to go so far as to incorporate a four-year period in the Bill.
Nor did they incorporate other little lollipops held out in the last White Paper, such as the suggestion that there should be objective criteria assessed by a board. That certainly could be provided for in the Bill, but there is no reference to any board looking at the matter to establish objective criteria. No doubt, the Government came to the conclusion that quite enough bureaucracy and bureaucrats were established by the Bill without adding a board to look at financial resources.
There was also a tempting reference to a formula for the percentage of the total money spent on similar services in England. That was regarded as a possibility. There is no reference to that in the Bill either. There is nothing in the Bill. Clause 44, the block grant clause, is extraordinarily naked. Yet if we had not initiated this debate we should have not only a naked clause but a nonexistent debate. The Government organised the guillotine in such a way that the whole block grant procedure was not to be debated.
The new clause or the amendment—in whichever form it is to be—will not solve the problem. The problem is not soluble in the context of this misguided scheme of devolution, but it is necessary


and salutary for the House at least to recognise that the subject that we have shied away from up to now, understandably enough, namely, the disparity in the provision per capita between Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, will inevitably loom large once this system is set up. The House might as well recognise it, and be given the bare facts relating to it when and if the block grant ever comes to be divided.
There is the dual area of conflict—on the one hand, Scotland's inevitably being driven to ask for more, and representing itself as coming to the Treasury and finding a mean Treasury depressing services in Scotland; and on the other hand, the people of England being increasingly resentful of Scotland's getting more per capita than England or Wales. This is the picture that arises from this scheme. It is not a pretty one. It gives ample support for our belief that the Bill is redolent of conflict, and nowhere more so than in its financial provisions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Oh, well. Sir David Renton.

Sir David Renton: Accustomed though I am to reluctance, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a great privilege to have caught your eye! I support without hesitation both the new clauses of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). In a discussion during the Committee stage, initiated, if I remember rightly, by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), about the way in which Scotland might fare financially if we had devolution, I drew attention to the contrast between the present circumstances, in which we vote hundreds of millions of pounds for the benefit of Scotland—we gladly do so, with the minimum of protest—and the situation which will arise if the Bill becomes law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby has underlined that point and has given some figures in support of his argument. However, there are a couple of statistics which we both used in a previous debate of which I shall remind the House. The needs of Scotland are so much greater than those of England and Wales taken together that we grant to

Scotland 22 per cent. more expenditure per head than we grant for England and Wales.
On the other side of the account, Scottish resources are 11 per cent. per head less than those of England and Wales. But the Government of the day, whether Labour or Conservative, have no hesitation in asking the House of Commons as a whole to make up the difference. The taxpayers of England, especially, are called upon generously to help Scotland under the present system, which has lasted for so long. But it will not be the same, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, if this Bill is passed and we have devolution.
7.0 p.m.
The two new clauses, together with Amendment No. 43, would do much to overcome the disadvantage from which Scotland would suffer if we had devolution. We are glad to see the Secretary of State here. We do not see him very often. He has left the responsibility to a relatively inexperienced Minister of State, who has had a difficult time and has done his best without having sufficient authority to take all the decisions that need to be taken by a Minister in charge of a Bill. I hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State that he welcomes with open arms the principle of the two clauses. Whether he accepts the drafting is immaterial. That can be attended to at a later stage.
It is surely right to supplement Clause 44 by New Clause 2, which merely provides for the House some of the information that would undoubtedly be needed before we decided whether or not to approve a block grant proposed by the Government of the day. That simply is information with regard to resources per capita and comparing the position with regard to Scotland and the position with regard to England and Wales.
New Clause 3 is perhaps even more important. It goes further and places a specific obligation upon the Government when working out the block grants and before laying a draft order before the House. The clause ensures that Scotland be as well treated in getting the resources required to pay for its needs in devolved matters as England and Wales are. I must fairly point out—my hon. Friend did not try to conceal this—that we do not go so far as to


say that needs shall be treated in the same way. We are anxious to ensure that Scotland is treated no worse in the matter of resources than are the people of England and Wales. That is as far as we think we need go after devolution. It is a modest enough suggestion, and I should have thought a welcome one.
With those few brief words of support, I hope that the Government will heed what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that the Minister will consider that our new clauses have been put forward with a view to improving the Bill, in the right kind of spirit and in the hope of protecting the interests of the people of Scotland, in the unfortunate event of the Bill ever being implemented.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) will be surprised to hear that on two counts I agree with some of his comments in moving his new clause. First—and I shall try to quote the hon. Gentleman accurately; I know that he will correct me if I have his words out of context—he believed that the financial arrangements are likely to be the main source of conflict, and he lamented that there had been inadequate time to discuss the financial arrangements at an earlier stage.

Mr. Brittan: I would say, not "the main" but "a main" source of conflict.

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps we can agree on the words "an important source of conflict".
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman believed that much more adequate information should be available if we were to consider the financial arrangements as proposed in the Bill. That point, on which I agreed with the hon. Gentleman, was echoed by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
It will be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend to learn that it is here that I part company with them. I have never heard such pathetic arguments to try to persuade us that Scotland is a poor country, dependent on English charity in order to survive. Any Scotsman will justly feel enraged when he reads about this in the Press, as he will tomorrow.
Of course, it is possible to prove a case of this kind if only selective statistics are

used. The hon. Gentleman was careful not to refer to the amendment to his new clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), myself and some of my hon. Friends. What we say in the amendment is that if we are to have figures, we should be sure that we have all the figures. It may be true that in certain services which tends to be among the ones devolved there is a greater amount paid to Scotland per capita. There are other services for which what returns to Scotland is much less.
For example, only about 6 per cent. of defence spending is done in Scotland. That is very much of a shortfall compared with our proper per capita entitlement. If we are to consider the expenditure, let us have a breakdown of all the expenditure of the United Kingdom and see which part goes to Scotland and which does not.

Mr. Brittan: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that where defence expenditure takes place should be decided on the basis of whether it is in Scotland, England or Wales rather than on the basis of the defence needs of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Henderson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to argue that there is no economic benefit to any area from defence expenditure, particularly procurement expenditure. I hope that he is not suggesting that, for example, the expenditure on Concorde, of which the Scottish taxpayer has paid a substantial part, should be totally ignored if we are to make comparisons of Government expenditure as between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that 6,000 jobs are being moved to Glasgow as a result of the Hardman Report? They are to be placed there between 1981–82 and 1985–86. This is a considerable loss to certain parts of the United Kingdom, including my constituency.

Mr. Henderson: I regret any inconvenience or distress caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but let us be frank. For years there has been a shortfall in Civil Service jobs in Scotland compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. The jobs of which the hon.


Gentleman spoke have not yet moved. It is all very well saying that they will move in 1981, 1985 or perhaps 1984. I do not know when it will be. They have not moved yet. We have learnt enough in Scotland to know that promises from this place can rapidly be torn up as soon as it is felt that the situation has changed.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I must continue. I have been quite good at giving way, and we are not conducting a chat show.
I have been saying that if we are to deal with expenditure we should have a breakdown of all expenditure as between what goes to Scotland and what does not. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who is a chartered accountant, will accept that if we are to have all expenditure broken down, we should have all income broken down as well. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby spoke of £500 million more being spent on Scotland per capita than Scotland deserved—than it deserved by virtue of the size of its population.

Mr. Brittan: That is an important qualification. If the hon. Gentleman is making even the slightest attempt to be fair, it should not be necessary for him to add that after what he originally said.

Mr. Henderson: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity about this matter. What he has said will appear in the Scottish Press, and he may be shopping his friends in the Scottish Conservative Party with the suggestion that the Scots are being subsidised from here. Is anyone disputing that the implications of the speeches of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire are that the Scots are being subsidised from here?

Sir David Renton: They are at the moment.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that at the moment the Scots are being subsidised and this is something that will lead to difficulties in the future.
I put to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and his hon. Friends

that Scotland is a very much wealthier country than they are leading us to believe. The problem at the moment is that Scotland is being separated from her resources at a time when the United Kingdom is, at it were, on a lift going steadily downwards from fourth position in the world in the 1950s to eighteenth, and is still going down. Countries of comparable size with Scotland, such as Sweden, Norway and Switzerland, are climbing up, while Scotland is being pulled down. The people of Scotland do not take very kindly to views that they are being subsidised from here or, indeed, from any other places.
Scotland is a country with great resources. The very distinguished United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States of America, when he was the economics correspondent of The Times, referred on 4th December 1975 to
sentimental Englishmen who like myself would be sorry to see Scotland leave Great Britain but who cannot also deny that it would be greatly to Scotland's advantage to do so.
Hon. Members must realise that the myth that Scotland is a poor country has been exploded. The Scottish people no longer believe it and are no longer interested in it. Of significance in the debate are the low-key threats which are being made by English Conservatives. They are saying, in effect, "You are having your devolution but you had better watch out, because we shall cut off the petty cash going to your Assembly." That is what is being said in the course of the debate. If Scotland is such a burden on this place as is being made out, why have not the English given us independence and let us go home to look after our own affairs?
The argument put forward by the Conservative Front Bench on this issue is a mendacious one. They will not look at all the figures. They will look only at certain figures. They will not look at the total income and total expenditure. If this is the English backlash, even in the civilised tones of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, I assure him that I am not shivering with fright or anything else. Scotland will face that, and if hon. Members wished to have a recipe for conflict it would be to vote for the new clause.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I will come in a moment to some of the remarks made by


the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), but I want first to refer to some of the things that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said. I agree with him that we on this Bench were in favour of and sought to have introduced a revenue-raising system. That is incontestable and true. I would, however, say to him that we still believe that in gaining the agreement to a thorough consideration of the idea of a fixed formula for a block grant over a period of years, very considerable progress has been made.
The reason that we argued in favour of extending the block grant was to give the Assembly some freedom of action, some real discretion, in its spending priorities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as all the commentators in Scotland realise, if there is an annual haggle it means essentially that it will be very difficult, in a situation in which the Assembly is dealing with rolling programmes in any event, to do anything which would not be very closely supervised by the Treasury. It would mean setting up a system which would have built into it the capacity of the Treasury to defeat the very object of the exercise, which was to give the Assembly some freedom of action. We still believe that the possibiilty of friction would be exacerbated by an annual haggle. That is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying in regard to his new clause, and also contrary to New Clause 3.
I agree that it would be difficult to draw up a formula. Any formula would, in fact, be the consequence of a political negotiation, and it would not be possible to write it into legislation. I suppose that something could have been written into legislation about the independent board which the Government intend should be established and which I believe could provide some objective information, but this is, again, a political attempt. The setting up of such a board could, in a sense, cast doubt on the objectivity of the Treasury and the statistics produced by it. As appeared from the White Paper what was envisaged was an additional means of gaining the confidence of both sides in the negotiations and trying as far as possible to remove causes of friction. The new clause would not, I think, help that.

Mr. Brittan: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, looked at from his angle, there is any reason why both the board and the four-year provision should not be put into the Bill, if the Government were serious? There is absolutely no reason why an independent board should not be set up by statute. Most independent bodies of that kind are set up by statute. As for the four-year provision, although the quantity cannot be set up, there is no reason why the fact that it should be done on a four-year basis should not be in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that the Government have not put it in the Bill. If not, perhaps he will explain why he feels that it should not be in the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I point out to the hon. Gentleman, with respect, that we have Budgets annually in this House.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: No; we have a financial year. We have four Budgets a year.

Mr. Johnston: It is not possible in statutes to commit sums of money ahead in that fashion. For the rate support grant a formula is agreed upon and is followed over a number of years. It is not possible, according to the information that I have received, to write that particular theme into a statute. I agree with the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that it would be possible to have legislation—indeed, it might be necessary—to set up a board in the future, as has been postulated, but I think that it was part of the view of the Government, from which we did not in any way dissent, that this was something which should be discussed with the Assembly when it is established. I do not think that is a reason for pouring cold water over it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman alluded to the rate support grant. He will know that the elements within the rate support grant are set out in the statute—the needs element, the domestic element, and so on. Why is it not possible within the Bill to indicate, for the benefit of that political process—which will, of course, need to determine the amounts—the principles by which these needs shall be determined? That is easily done with the rate support grant. There is no reason why it should not be done in the Bill. It would give a


much more equitable guide to those who have to make the decision.

Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is easily done in the rate support grant he must be one of the few people in the whole of the United Kingdom who does. Rate support grant formulae are among the most recondite in recorded human history.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. He does me a slight injustice, because I have been in Government and have been responsible or the rate support grant negotiations. I fully recognise their complexity. But there is nothing complicated about the principles. The principles are set out in a statute and indicate—if the hon. Gentleman wishes to know—that there shall be a needs element, a resources element and a domestic element. That gives some principles by which Ministers and local authorities are guided. Although the actual sums depend on political judgments, this could at least be imported into the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I would not necessarily deny that that is so. That brings me to the next—perhaps what I regard as being the most important—part of what I have to say. In such negotiations these elements to which the hon. Gentleman referred will obviously be the main considerations. That is the way the Government will have to operate in that situation. It will be quite inevitable that needs will be a major element in making a determination. I do not see how in the circumstances of the continuance of the union—which is what we are talking about—that it should change in any way.
That is what I find disturbing about the approach in the new amendments put down by the Conservative Front Bench. If New Clause 3 were taken into account, and New Clause 2 to an extent, clearly the approach to need as being the basis of this determination would change. That is a divisive approach which is mirrored in the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and his colleagues in the SNP.
Both New Clause 3 and New Clause 2 are founded on the strange political thesis that the disparities in expenditure between England and Scotland or between

the English regions and Scotland, vis-à-vis per capita expenditure on devolved services in Scotland, England and Wales, although the English regions are not mentioned in the new clauses, will be looked at differently after devolution.
The argument is that, when the Scottish Assembly is set up, the English regions will become more agitated about them. The other thesis is that devolution will produce bad government and that bad government in turn will produce a demand for more money.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby looks hesitant about that, but he said—I took down his words—that the Assembly will ask for more money to deal with the lower standards which by its policies it will have created.

Mr. Brittan: That is an unfair summary. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was a summary of a point that I had made earlier, which was that if the Assembly exercised its discretion at all it would have to spend more money on some things and less on others. The effect of that, therefore, is that in some areas—say housing, for example—standards will be better and there will be no complaint. But there will be other areas where, precisely because money has been distributed according to a different sense of priorities, standards will fall. It is not a question of being inefficient or incompetent, but rather that deliberate decisions will be made that will lead to disparities which previously did not exist.

Mr. Johnston: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I have no intention of trying to portray his argument unfairly. He is saying that the Assembly might determine to spend a greater proportion of money on housing rather than on health, to take up a point mentioned in Committee by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). But that will only appear over a period of four, five, six, seven or eight years. In a devolutionary situation where an Assembly exists this will be subject to the Scottish electorate who, after all, will be electing the people responsible for making those decisions of priority. I do not think that represents a criticism of devolution per se.

Mr. Dalyell: I was speaking in the context of suggesting that if more money


was spent on housing a lot of people in Scotland would then complain that the health services were of a different standard, from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and should therefore be brought up to the same standard.

Mr. Johnston: With respect, the people to whom they would have to complain would be the people in the Edinburgh Assembly—the people in the Royal High School as now is—who will be responsible for having made that decision. It would not be the responsibility of the English, or of the House of Commons, or of the United Kingdom or anybody else. It would be the responsibility of the Assembly in Edinburgh.
However, it is not so much that argument that I find the most unpleasant part of the way these things get discussed. It is the emphasis that is being placed by the official Opposition upon the fact that much more significance henceforth will be attached to per capita expenditure in England as against Scotland. That is the other side of the argument which I find most reprehensible.
The argument which the SNP has produced and sloganised is "Do you prefer to be a rich Scotland or a poor Britain?" Not only in the context of the United Kingdom, but also in the context of Europe, I find that a quite unacceptable approach to politics. I do not believe that we in the United Kingdom, Scotland or any other part of the Community should look at things in that way.
I do not believe that the Scottish electorate will look at things in that way come the existence of an Assembly. I think they will be much more enlightened and fairer in their approach and will continue the general needs element basis which has been a foundation of most policies with regard to economic and regional matters operated by both Labour and Conservative Governments.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Gentleman said it was fanciful on our part to say that the regions of England would start complaining about Scotland getting more expenditure if an Assembly were set up and we were still to get our 25 per cent. per capita more. I think that is quite wrong. We do not even have to look in the crystal ball. It is happening already. The regions of England are already complaining.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) is present. Why? Because he knows that his part of England is being unfairly treated per capita compared with the treatment that Scotland gets. That is why the hon. Gentleman is not supporting the Bill. He is nodding. It is happening already and it will happen even more when the Assembly is actually set up.
As has been said, people will then realise even more sharply how the regions of England are being done down at the expense of parts of Scotland where, for example, unemployment is not so high.

Mr. Johnston: The regions of England are not being done down at the expense of parts of Scotland. Far from it. I know that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) is a fair-minded man and I am sure that he would not contend that that was so. He knows as well as I do—as well as you do, Mr. Speaker—that successive Governments of the United Kingdom, in the dispersal of resources, have taken into account the needs element throughout the United Kingdom. In the devolved context we are talking only about the devolved services. We are not talking about economic measures at all. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby dealt somewhat superficially with the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East about defence. Defence, of course, has an economic element. If one had to start looking at every single item of expenditure involved in running our society defence is certainly a part of that calculation as is how much is spent in Scotland, Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom—

Mrs. Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Johnston: I shall give way in just a moment. Before the hon. Lady intervenes I think it important that she gets over her period of excitement.
What I regret most about the tail-end of the discussion on this Bill is that we should be moving towards a comparison of expenditures of all kinds simply on the basis of what the figure is rather than on the reason why we are spending that money, which is important.

Mrs. Knight: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not excitement which is worrying me so much as mystification. Does he believe that devolution, the


setting up of the Assembly and the other matters that we are discussing have not a very real connection with finance which, because of this Bill, is being spent in a specific area? Does not he accept that there is a real connnection between finance and what we are discussing in the Bill?

Mr. Johnston: Of course, there is a connection between finance and what we are discussing in the Bill. But, as I understand it, the basic argument for devolution is that the administration of affairs in Scotland would be conducted more effectively, more responsibly and more sensitively and that the very effective but not very well controlled bureaucracy in St. Andrew's House would be subject to more effective democratic control than is the case at the moment. That is the important argument, and that is the argument of which we should not lose sight.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have considerable affection for the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I remember how, when he first came to the House, he used to wear the kilt and he had a knife in his stocking. I am sorry that he does not do that any more, because the colour has gone from the Liberal Bench. Tonight, perhaps he was tired, but his speech was more like the twirling of the kilt than the cutting of the knife. With respect to him, I do not think that he cut a very graceful picture as he tried to get out of his difficulties, the Liberal Party having given certain undertakings which it now manifestly has failed to achieve—[Interruption.] The Liberal Party—[Interruption]—wanted to achieve—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want sedentary interventions.

Mr. Griffiths: Let us have it, by all means.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) concede that it is not quite dignified to attack the national dress of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Griffiths: I was far from attacking it. I was regretting its absence. The hon.

Member for Inverness made a most colourful sight as he sat in his national dress on the Liberal Bench.
My understanding was that the Liberal Party had virtually promised to obtain from the Government some revenue-raising powers for the Scottish Assembly. It has not succeeded, and I can understand why the hon. Member for Inverness feels some slight sense of embarrassment. He is a decent man, and he is good enough to be embarrassed when his party fails to achieve what is has undertaken to achieve.
However, if the Government have decided to go in for a three-year or four-year period for the setting of the budget, it may be that the hon. Member for Inverness is in possession of some secret which the Government have yet to divulge to the House. It may be that the Minister will tell the House that the Government have decided on a three-year or four-year arrangement, though I rather doubt it because I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to that sort of hypothecating of the revenue in advance. I do not think that Treasury Ministers concerned with managing the money supply or the demand of the economy would be willing to let go, three or four years in advance, expenditures of the kind which will fall to be met in these devolved sectors. But if that is the case and the Government have agreed to go for some period of time of that kind, I hope that the Minister will tell us now. It is important. The hon. Member for Inverness seemed to suggest that he was privy to the Government having decided to do that.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I said simply that the Government had said—it was published in the White Paper and repeated by the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box—that if the Assembly, once established, wished to have a fixed-term period, the Government would regard that sympathetically and be willing to see that it was done.

Sir David Renton: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) replies to that intervention, will he also consider, bearing in mind the pace of inflation that is still continuing and may not be contained for several years, whether it would not be a grave disadvantage to the Scottish people


that a block grant should be fixed even for two years, much less three or four years?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Judging by the way matters have gone in recent years, I doubt whether that would be safe for even two months. Rate support grant increase orders have had to be made, and there have been occasions when Ministers have had to come back to the House for new subventions for some of our publicly owned industries at a rate which suggests to me that any three-year or four-year rolling programme would be a very bad bargain.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Inverness for his clarification of what he said. But at least he suggested that there was good reason to believe that the Government would accept a three-year or four-year basis for setting the block grant of the Assembly. For many reasons, it would be desirable if they could do that. But for all practical reasons, including inflation but above all including the management of the economy, I find it impossible to believe that this House or any Government would be willing to let go of that degree of control over the overall management of the United Kingdom economy.
Therefore, we are driven back to the position that it will be an annual event not very different in practice from the rate support grant negotiations, although the sums of money in the devolved areas of Scotland will not be, I trust, anywhere near as great as those which are dispensed by Ministers in the local government rate support grant negotiations. My figures may be out of date, but they run into many billions of pounds. I hope that we are not talking about figures of that magnitude with regard to the annual block grant for the Scottish Assembly. It may be a sum such as £3 billion but, by comparison with the rate support grant negotiations, we are talking of a comparatively modest affair.
The hon. Member for Inverness suggested that it was quite impracticable to set out on the face of the Bill the method by which the block grant should be calculated. I am not sure that he is right, and I hope that the Minister will tell the House what method is to be used. It cannot just be a political negotiation,

with Ministers sitting on one side of the table and representatives of the Scottish Executive sitting on the other side advised by their civil servants, and coughing up a number. There has to be a set of principles by which the block grant will be calculated.
If the hon. Member for Inverness consults the various statutes, he will discover that from time to time Parliament has set out plainly how these large sums of money should be calculated. I have in mind, for example, the Local Government Act, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I are rather proud—it is nothing of which we need be ashamed. That provides that the aggregate amount of rate support grant for any year shall be divided into three elements, to be known respectively as the needs element, the domestic element and the resources element. It is indispensable for those who have to negotiate these very large sums to have some equitable principles applying across the whole nation and being generally understood. In Scotland we shall find that the argument is between the two major elements of the rate support grant negotiations—needs on the one hand and resources on the other.
Assuming, that this Bill becomes an Act, we want to get it right. On the one hand there will he in front of the negotiators the cry that Scotland's needs are great. There will be the usual arguments about long distances for transport and the relative poverty of rural areas. On the other hand there will be the advice of United Kingdom civil servants that Scottish resources are very much greater than before because of the oil. The ping-pong match will be between those who cry for the needs of Scotland and those who say "Ah yes, but look at the resources." A balance between needs and resources will have to be struck.
Since this is the only debate that we shall have on the budget and the manner of calculating the budget for Scottish devolved subjects for the future, it is incumbent upon the Government to tell us how they will resolve the dilemma of needs and resources.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). He sounded rather like


a popular song I once heard on Broadway called "Poor Little Rich Girl". I cannot make out whether he was saying that Scotland is rich and that the English have no right to patronise it by talking about subsidies, or that Scotland is really poor and needs greater help. He seemed to me to be wanting it both ways. He seemed to be saying that Scotland must keep all the oil because it is so poor but that it has so much oil that it is richer than England and should not give some back to this country.

Mr. Henderson: I very much regret that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) seems to be confused. I would not wish him to go home in such a state of mind. We say that Scotland is wealthy and has resources, and we want its resources for ourselves in order to run our own economy and decide our own priorities.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member is still in the situation of the poor little rich girl. He is claiming that Scotland was so denied in the past that it should selfishly hold all its oil at home. I cannot believe that that is what he is really saying.
The hon. Member seemed to suggest that the proper way of allocating the resources of this country should be by "divvying" up expenditure on the basis of population, regardless of whether it is appropriate in terms of equity and justice to spend those resources in such a way. He was suggesting that Scotland should have a bit of the Concorde programme and defence projects, worked out not in terms of the needs of the nation but in terms of giving Scotland, Wales, East Anglia and so on a bit each. That is madness. That is not the way that the British Government can allocate resources.

Mr. Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that if we were to have a division of expenditure on devolved subjects as the Opposition Front Bench are requesting, let us have a figure for everything including non-devolved services so that we know where we are spending money.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member, but it all comes

down to the point that we need more information. That information which he is seeking in New Clause No. 3 would be very appropriate if it were possible to obtain it. The proposition that he puts forward—namely that public expenditure should be "divvied" up on a basis of regions or counties of the United Kingdom—is absurd.
When I lived in the United States there was in the Senate what was called the "pork barrel". If Maryland got something, California had to have something as well. It was a matter of working things out behind closed doors in the Senate. We do not want "pork barrel" politics in this country. That is not something from which the Scottish National Party will get any advantage at the polls.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) recited the chequered history of the Government's wrestling match with the block grant. I do not pretend to have read or understood all the options rehearsed in the White Paper. I remember that when we were dealing with local government we wondered whether, once reorganised, it could be given greater revenue powers. We looked at petrol tax and the possibility of selling planning permission and so on, but we come to the conclusion that none of these suggestions was very attractive. The Government have rehearsed the possible ways in which revenue raising powers could be given to the Scottish Assembly and have found them all impractical, inequitable or politically unattractive.
What do we have instead? We simply have a block grant based on no known criteria. This is bound to be a recipe for conflict between the Scots and the English.
The point has been made that in the first year it will be possible to make a pretty good fist of the block grant. We shall be able to look at what was spent in the previous year and add a little for inflation and new legislation that has been passed which compels expenditure. However, as the years go by, in say four or five years, there will inevitably be a great divergence between the expenditure pattern of the Scottish Assembly on devolved services and the expenditure pattern in the rest of the country. If that were not so, there would be no point in having a separate Scottish Assembly


or Executive, because it is their task to decide priorities. Therefore, it is inevitable, over a period of years, that when the Scots decide their own domestic expenditure, some services will improve and others will deteriorate, comparatively speaking. It may be a case of up schools and down hospitals or up roads and down social services. Whatever the priorities, these will diverge from the expenditure patterns in the rest of the country. What happens then?
Inevitably whenever the Scottish services show an improvement above the standards prevailing in the United Kingdom as a whole, the English will ask questions why they, with lower educational standards, for example, should pay through the nose to finance an increasing gap between the standards of education in Scotland and England. As a matter of practical politics there is no way that hon. Members, if they seek accurately to represent their constituents, could fail to notice that.
Let us examine the other side of the coin. Let us look at the position in which for one reason or another, because the Scottish Assembly moves some of its fixed resources in one direction, other services deteriorate in comparison with English levels. In those circumstances, where the Scots fall behind by their own decisions, inevitably our friends in the SNP, the Scottish Press and elsewhere will select the areas in which Scotland's standards have fallen below those in England. The inevitable result will be to blame not the Scottish Assembly but the United Kingdom Parliament.
Where the Scottish services by their own devolved decisions reach higher standards, the English will resent it; and where the Scottish standards are lower than those in England, the Scots will resent it. However, there is bound to be an enormous collision between Westminster and Scotland. This, I am sorry to say, is exactly what the SNP Members want.

Mr. Russell Johnston: First, it is not inevitable that there would be a divergence, nor if there is no divergence is that an argument against devolution. One can perfectly well have the two different parts of the United Kingdom more effectively governed separately than together, without their necessarily following policies that are widely divergent.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman's philosophy, that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, is the philosophy of his party. He and his Liberal colleagues always hope that things will turn out right in the end. Unfortunately, they do not. If the Scottish Assembly is not to have a different order of priorities among the devolved subjects than that deployed in the United Kingdom Parliament, there is no point in having a Scottish Assembly with that kind of power. It would simply be a talking shop, a symbol, a meaningless body which is there as an ornament.
It is inevitable and right within the context of this Bill that a Scottish Assembly will insist on doing some things differently. If it did not, there would be no point in having it. If it changes the pattern of expenditure, there will be a new divergence between Scotland and England, and within that divergence lie the seeds of conflict.
Since this is the only debate we are likely to have on the structure and principles by which Scottish budgets are to be determined, I hope that the Minister will come clean with the House and say how he visualises the structure of the block grant, which is the Scottish budget. On what principles is the budget to be created? What will be the method of achieving a measure of equity in public expenditure between the English and the Scots? Will the Minister examine our argument and say why it is not inevitable that the seeds of conflict will be sown in the discrepancy built by this clause?

Mr. Sproat: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) for tabling this clause and for arguing it cogently. It gives us the chance to discuss, almost for the first time, the budget and financial provisions of the Scottish Assembly—a matter that lies at the heart of the Bill.
It is incredible that we should now, on Report, be discussing this matter for the first time. Surely there can never have been a Bill which has reached this stage and three-quarters of which has never been discussed in Committee. Surely that has never happened before, and it is shocking for it to happen on a Bill of this magnitude and importance. However, my hon. Friend has given us


the opportunity to rectify that appalling omission.
My hon. Friend has put us in his debt because once again his speech has demonstrated to the House something that becomes clearer the more we debate it. The closer we examine the Bill, the more we see that new problems arise. At every stage the Bill creates problems which have never existed before. Having created those problems, the Bill offers no solution. Therefore, we are left in a far worse situation. In considering the financial implications of the Scottish Assembly, we have come across one more such monster.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) always makes a lucid speech. Unfortunately, his lucidity is a positive disadvantage when he has nothing to say, because it is clear that his arguments are empty.
The hon. Gentleman put before us two propositions relating to the amount of money which is allocated to the Scottish Assembly and how that sum will be decided. He said that it would be either an annual grant or a grant on a three or four-year basis. That is a problem we do not face at present, because we do not have a Scottish Assembly. However, we then face a new problem, namely, how to give a direct grant to such an Assembly. The two solutions advanced, either an annual decision or a three or four-yearly decision will not work because if there is an annual grant there will be an annual haggle.
We all know what will happen. The Scottish Prime Minister—as, alas, he will come to be called—will say "Scotland is not getting enough out of this". He will go down to No. 10 Downing Street, will refuse to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Scottish television cameras will be outside, including reporters from The Scotsman. The message will go out that Scotland is being done down and robbed. Therefore, the annual negotiations will turn into an annual fight. That is not a satisfactory solution.
The other solution put forward by the hon. Gentleman is a four-yearly block grant. Even that suggestion is impossible, because, in view of the rate of inflation, there is no way in which one can

budget four years ahead. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I am not criticising him on this point—has already felt it necessary to bring in 12 Budgets, even within his short period of office. If a British Chancellor has to introduce 12 Budgets to deal with the British economy, how can we propose that the Scottish economy should be dealt with by one budget every four years?

Mr. Russell Johnston: There could be a fixed formula on a percentage basis relating to expenditure on devolved services in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sproat: There could indeed, and that is a third option in the fixed formula. I shall come to that matter in more detail in a moment. I beg the hon. Member not to disguise from himself the fact that Scotland will receive per capita only the same amount given to England for its housing needs. That would not be accepted in Scotland. It would be said "Nitshill deserves more than X, Y or Z area in Great Britain". That is right. There is no way of fixing a formula to operate over a four-year period. That is unthinkable.
8.0 p.m.
It does not operate at the moment. That is why we have annual rate support grant negotiations. If it does not work for those negotiations, why should it work over a four-year period? We are creating a new problem—how to finance the Assembly—and no solution has been put before us. Once again, conflict between Scotland and England, leading to the great risk of a break-up of the United Kingdom, jumps inevitably out of the Bill. That is what many of my hon. Friends fear, and our fears are confirmed in every clause and amendment.
Another cause of conflict arises out of the cogent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby and, particularly, the proposals in New Clause No. 3. If the block grant is to remain at a level that is roughly equivalent to the present level of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. per capita higher than in England, that will not be accepted in England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who is sitting beside me, will not accept that. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) came in to listen to the debate


because he will not accept that for the North-East. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has pointed out time and again that unemployment in Liverpool is worse than it is in Glasgow. If we institutionalise the unfairness in the distribution of resources, we shall build up conflict.
If we retain the 25 per cent. per capita extra that Scotland receives, we shall cause deep resentment in East Anglia, the North-West, the North-East, the South-West and all those areas of England which are worse off than Scotland in terms of unemployment or wage levels. In East Anglia, the average weekly wage is about £5 less than in Scotland. Why should a 25 per cent. excess for Scotland be accepted in England? It will not be accepted.

Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend also consider the fact that there is a specific area in which the shortage of cash in England is making itself grievously felt? I refer to the National Health Service and to the fact that babies and kidney patients are dying because we do not have enough money. Will my hon. Friend give weight to that in what he is saying?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend reinforces my argument with a very good example. At present, people in all parts of the United Kingdom are prepared, if not to accept, at least to see how the situation that my hon. Friend has described can arise because we in this House together decide these matters. If that position changed and Scotland were put in a temporary financial advantage over other parts of the United Kingdom, resentment would be aroused in England. In the same way, if the grant to Scotland were cut, resentment would be aroused there.
That is one of my fears. If Scotland continues to get 25 per cent. more, the majority of hon. Members, who do not represent Scottish seats, will say that they do not see why Scotland, as opposed to areas of need in Scotland, should get that 25 per cent. more. They will say that the grant should be reduced and, since the majority of hon. Members do not come from Scotland, the grant will be reduced. The ironic paradox of the Bill is that Scotland will be financially worse off in the not too distant future, if the Bill goes through, because the

approximately £500 million a year extra which it receives now above what is justified by its input to the Treasury will disappear.
Once again, conflict will arise. If Scotland gets the 25 per cent. extra, there will be bitter resentment in England. If it does not get the 25 per cent. extra, the people of Scotland will feel resentment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that the negotiations might be like those that we have for the rate support grant. The great difference is that into the negotiations for the Assembly grant will be injected elements of nationalist emotion and hysteria which will make them quite different from the rate support grant negotiations, difficult as they are. Any negotiations between the United Kingdom Treasury and the Scottish Assembly will have this explosive nationalist element in them and our fear is that ultimately this may blow apart these two parts of the United Kingdom.
The SNP spokesman did not make a great deal of North Sea oil, though I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) muttering "Scotland's oil" under his breath at one stage. We did not hear much about it being Shetland's oil or the rights of poor little Shetland. The SNP Members are anxious to talk about Scotland's oil when it suits them, but they forget that 60 per cent. of the oil is off the coast of Shetland and they deny Shetland the rights that they wish to arrogate to Scotland. It is typical of the hypocrisy and double dealing of the SNP that they wish to arrogate to themselves that which they are not prepared to give to others.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Shetland's interest is in the poundage received on barrels of oil landed at Sullom Voe. The oil that lies off the coast belongs to the State in terms of international rules.

Mr. Sproat: I shall not be tempted to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path, though I remember his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) saying that international rules would prevent Shetland from getting the oil and that an independent Scotland would see that Shetland did not get its own way. The hypocrisy of the SNP vis-à-vis Shetland is clear in the statements of the hon. Member for


Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire and in the shabby, squalid loiterings of SNP Members in the Lobby the other night. We need say no more to prove the double standards that they employ.
Apart from the fact that Shetland has 60 per cent. of the oil, it will run out in 25 years anyway. The idea that one could build the Scottish economy on a commodity that will not be there in less than a generation is a fallacy that needs to be exposed.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sproat: No, I must move on.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is scared.

Mr. Sproat: I am not scared—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) addressed the Chair, he would find a little less difficulty.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise, Sir Myer. On Report one tends to address one's remarks to the person with whose contribution one is particularly concerned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a convention of the House. There is no reason to do that on Report.

Mr. Sproat: I am flattered that you wish to hear more closely what I have to say, Sir Myer. I should like to put to the SNP, through you—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of this "Sir Myer". My wife will be wondering where I am. Please call me "Mr. Deputy Speaker".

Mr. Sproat: No one has done more to distinguish that title than yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We heard rantings from the SNP earlier about the wealth of Scotland, but apart from mentioning North Sea oil, which will last for only 25 years and belongs to the United Kingdom anyway, they have not said what that wealth consists of. We know that almost every lump of coal in Scotland that is dug out of the ground is dug out at a loss. If we want to put it in this way, it is dug out on the backs of English miners. Where is the wealth there? We know that

almost every mile of railway line in Scotland runs at a loss. Where is the wealth there?
The Scottish National Party talks about wealth, but when it has a chance to spell out to the House exactly what that wealth consists of, it conspicuously fails to tell us. In fact, it cannot tell us because, whatever virtues Scotland may possess, and it is possessed of many, its virtues at present do not include those of substantial material resources. That is what Scotland does not have. We have many other qualities and commodities, but not those resources. The SNP cannot maintain that Scotland is rich in that way. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East will seek to remedy the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), who is conspicuously absent from the Chamber.
I conclude by referring to New Clause No. 3. If anything, the clause is too generous to Scotland. My hon. Friends are proposing that per capita expenditure in Scotland should never be less than in England. That is precisely the worst sort of fallacy into which we are falling, led by the SNP. The House should never allocate expenditure only on the basis of geography. Allocation should be based on need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby is being too generous in saying that Scottish expenditure should never be less than in England. However, I hope that the day will soon come when it needs to be less, when housing in Glasgow, for example, is immensely superior to that in Manchester and does not need extra help, or when the roads to Aberdeen are so wonderfully straight and traffic free that we do not need more miles of motorway in Scotland per capital than in England.
In other words, what we want is justice. We do not want special pleading for Scotland any more than East Anglia or the South-West of England want special pleading. We want justice for each part of the United Kingdom. If Scotland's needs are greater, Scotland should get the resources. If its needs are less, it should not get the resources. That is the basis on which the House should operate.
My only criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby is that he is perhaps being too generous.


However, that must be a small criticism when he has done the House a great service by giving it the chance once more to discuss the financial matters of the Scottish Assembly.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): New Clause 2 would oblige the Secretary of State when laying an order under Clause 44 also to lay before the House a calculation of the per capita expenditure on devolved services in Scotland compared with a similar per capita expenditure on those services in England and Wales. It is that rather narrow aspect that we are discussing. Basically, we are dealing with a narrow, additional piece of information that the House is being recommended to oblige the Secretary of State to supply when the Bill has become an Act and an order is being laid under what will be Section 44.
The new clause has enabled the House to discuss some of the wider issues that arise from the block fund system. I do not complain about that. Nevertheless, I do not think that the House expects me to go over the arguments that we had at an earlier stage about independent revenue-raising powers for the Scottish Assembly. That is an issue that we have dealt with before.
8.15 p.m.
For the purposes of the debate we must assume that the block fund is in operation. We are considering the mechanisms that the Government and the Assembly, and the Scottish Executive on behalf of the Assembly, will build up to allow the various necessary negotiations to take place in as meaningful a way as possible.
I make the simple point, which no one has yet mentioned in the debate, that there is an obligation under Clause 44(2), as it stands, that the Secretary of State, in laying the order for the block fund, shall also lay a statement of the considerations leading to the determinations to be made by the order. If I might mention a parallel, we are under an obligation to do something similar to that which we do for rate support grant orders.
The order itself is a fairly incomprehensible document, but accompanying the rate support grant order there is a White Paper or statement by the Government that explains the economic background to the order, the way in which

the expenditure for the following year has been calculated and the basis on which the rate support grant is being paid. I do not want to draw too close a parallel between the rate support grant order and what will happen under the Bill as regards the block fund, but we are dealing with something similar in the sense that as well as the order itself, which will no doubt have the necessary figures in it but may not be terribly enlightening, there will be a statement, for which provision is already made in the Bill.
In discussing the new clause we are dealing with an additional piece of information, apparently, something that is additional to the statement of the considerations that the Secretary of State will already be obliged to lay before the House under Clause 44(2). I do not think that it is sensible to draft the Bill to lay an obligation to provide a specific piece of information when a good deal more additional information will be necessary for the House in any event.
If a Secretary of State were to take it that he was discharging his obligation under Clause 44(2) merely by laying before the House the sort of calculation that is provided for in the new clause, I think that the House would justly be offended. It would take the view that that was not an adequate basis on which to judge the block fund order that the House was being asked to approve. The sort of information that is provided for in the new clause is only a small part of the information that I believe the House will wish to have when it deals with block funds under Clause 44.
The information that is sought in the clause can easily be obtained at present. For example, there is an answer in Hansard of 2nd December 1977 at column 458 dealing with public expenditure on devolved services in Scotland compared with similar expenditure on such services in the rest of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members are able to table a simple Question and receive an answer.
The answer to which I have referred is not precise to the last penny, or even to the last pound. That is because at present there is a certain grey area in the calculations. However, any hon. Member can obtain that sort of information. Hon. Members are already able to obtain


the information that is provided for in the new clause for the post-devolution situation by the simple process of tabling a Question.
If I recommend to the House that it should not single out this one piece of information as meriting special mention in a special clause, it is not because I believe that the information is necessarily irrelevant to consideration of the block fund. Some hon. Members may think that it is extremely relevant. If I make that recommendation, it is not because I believe that a Secretary of State would wish in any way to prevent that information from being made available to the House. I take the view that he would be bound to make it available if he were asked to do so. Regardless of whether he puts it in the order, the covering White Paper, or whatever form the statement takes, if the House wanted the information, it would be bound to be able to obtain it. Far from a Secretary of State wishing to prevent the House from having this information, he will be under an obligation, and the House will put him under an obligation, to provide not only that information but a good deal of additional information.
It would be misleading, for that reason—I hope that the House will accept this argument—to single out this piece of information as being of such special significance that it must specifically be written into the Bill when none of the other matters that the House will in due course expect to have before it will be particularised in the Bill as it stands. However, all the information is already comprehended in the wording of Clause 44(2).
I accept that the House will require a good deal of information. I refer hon. Members to the White Paper, "Devolution: Financing the Devolved Services", published in July 1977. I particularly refer hon. Members to what was said in Part III of that White Paper. We accept the need to collect a certain amount of data not available at present in quite the form that the House will wish subsequently to have it. Paragraph 71 of that White Paper refers to
collecting objective information on needs and standards of public services in all four countries of the United Kingdom.

First, there is the question of needs. Per capita expenditure by itself can be extremely misleading. It does not take account of the relative needs of different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, expenditure on health is very much affected by the percentage of the population who are under the age of five and the percentage who are above the age of 65, and particularly above the age of 70. That kind of information is relevant—some of it is collected even now for purposes of rate support grant—in deciding the relative needs of different parts of the United Kingdom.
Standards of public services are more difficult operations to carry out. But the Treasury, in conjunction with other Government Departments, is trying to collect as much information as possible in an intelligible and coherent form in preparation for the block fund negotiations that the Government will have to carry out with the Scottish Executive. That is provided for in paragraph 71 of the White Paper.
That information will have to be made available to the House in some way. Whether it is done by way of a statement under Clause 44 or in some other way, I think that the House will be entitled to have as much information as possible about needs and standards of public services.
We have gone further than that in the White Paper. We have suggested that it would assist not only the Government and the Scottish Executive but also the House to judge the adequacy or otherwise of the block fund if we were to establish an independent advisory body to look at and make an appraisal of the information and that its advice would be available both to the Government and to the Scottish Executive. That is provided for in paragraph 72 of the White Paper.

Mr. Brittan: But not in the Bill.

Mr. Millan: I shall be coming to that matter. There is a reason why it is not provided for in the Bill. I shall deal with the rate support grant parallel on this issue as well. We believe that we should consult the devolved Administration before setting up such an independent advisory body. It would not be sensible—incidentally, this is not the effect of the new clause—to write this into the Bill or,


as it were, to take a unilateral decision to set up this independent advisory body except in consultation with the devolved Administration. Unless the independent body had the confidence not only of the devolved Administration but also of the United Kingdom Government, far from helping to provide some kind of appraisal upon which the inevitable negotiations, which will have a large political element, could take place, it would be an irritant. It would look to the devolved Administration as if it were some kind of device on the part of the United Kingdom Government to produce an answer which was satisfactory to the Government and detrimental to the devolved Administration. It is important, if the House takes seriously the question of eliminating sources of friction, to have some kind of independent advisory body. However, that can be done only with the co-operation of and in consultation with the devolved Administration. For that simple reason we have not written it into the Bill.
I should like to deal with one other matter that has featured in the debate—the question of a formula. The paragraphs in the White Paper on this matter—essentially paragraph 76—were put in because there was discussion and criticism of the Government's proposals on finance and it was suggested that the devolved Administration—I am now thinking of Wales as well as of Scotland—would have not only no certainty about its finances over a period but no particular way of judging what its finances were likely to be over a period ahead. Therefore, it was felt that, as the Government here, through the public expenditure surveys and the White Papers on public expenditure, try to look ahead for a period of years, it was essential to give the devolved Administration the opportunity to look ahead for a period of years and to find a way of allowing it to do that with a certain amount of confidence that its planning for the future would not be completely falsified by events.
This is a difficult exercise. If the proposition in paragraph 76 relating to the formula basis will not be acceptable to the House in due course and if the devolved Administration does not think that it is a sensible way of proceeding, the formula approach will not be work-

able. But I believe that in practice both the Government and the devolved Administration will find it useful at least to explore the possibility of the formula approach. That is all that we are saying. However, it cannot sensibly be done by writing it into the Bill. There is no sensible way in which we could in practical terms incorporate a formula into the Bill. We think that this would be a sensible way to proceed, but that, before doing so, we must have discussions with the devolved Administration. Again, for that reason, this proposal should not be written into the Bill.
8.30 p.m.
In the debate attention was drawn to the fact that when dealing with the rate support grant—I do not think that these parallels are necessarily the right ones to draw, but I accept that there is some validity in them—certain matters were written into the legislation regarding the needs element, the resources element, the domestic element and so on. Those matters were written into legislation when local authorities were consulted about what should be written into the legislation. Before there were such bodies as local authorities, the House did not produce a Local Government Act with all these complicated matters written into it. These matters are written into our legislation not only because the Government and the House of Commons find them sensible but because the local authorities find the principles sensible. That is an entirely different situation from writing provisions into the Bill before the devolved Administration has been established.
The rate support grant principles are written into legislation but the amounts are worked out outside the basic legislation. There is a certain amount of regulation-making power in the legislation, but the rate support grants are negotiated between the Ministers and the local authority associations on an annual basis.
Hon. Members have said that they will require a good deal of information about the basis on which the block fund is calculated. I agree with them. But I do not believe that we should write into the Bill any particular calculation about per capita expenditure. That would not help the House to make an appraisal of the


adequacy, justice and fairness of the block fund that the Secretary of State will ultimately produce in a draft order. It would be misleading to do that.
Anyone who wants information will be able to get it easily. It might be part of the order. If it is not, it will be obtained easily. If the House finds it convenient to have that information in the statement I am sure that the Minister will include it.
It would not be sensible to put New Clause 3 into the Bill. It adds nothing to what we have already. It simply says that what we pay to Scotland should be no less proportionately than what is spent in England and Wales on similar services. In practical terms it would do no harm but it is inconceivable that the block fund would go below that level. I think that it will be considerably above that level.
I turn to the SNP amendment. Members of that party are entitled to say that once one thing is written into a Bill other things should also be written into it. This demonstrates the logic and common sense of not writing anything too specific into the Bill. I do not accept that there is a Scottish sector of the North Sea from which oil revenues should go to the Scottish Executive. I do not accept the basic terms of the amendment. However, I have some sympathy with Members of the SNP because they are saying to the Opposition Front Bench, "If you write one thing in, we want to write in something else". It is not sensible to write anything into the Bill additional to that which is provided by Clause 44(2).
When the Assembly is operating and the block fund orders are coming before the House, if hon. Members feel that there is any information that is being denied them, there will be no difficulty in their obtaining that information, whether or not that is specifically written into the Bill.
For all these reasons I recommend that we do not write these matters into the Bill but that we rest on the general arrangement and the general willingness of any Government to provide the maximum information to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I have not spoken in the debate because instinct told me that I

would do better to wait until the Secretary of State had spoken. I am glad that I did. He made an extremely interesting speech, and I have certain questions to put to him.
If I heard him right, my right hon. Friend said that he rejected New Clause 3 because what Scotland would get would be considerably above the formula arrived at by that new clause. If I am wrong, he will correct me.
New Clause 3 reads:
In deciding on the draft order to be laid before the House under section 44(2) of this Act the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to ensure that in each financial year the resources per capita available for expenditure by the Scottish Executive for purposes falling within devolved matters shall not be less than the resources per capita provided for that year for the same purposes in England and Wales.
My right hon. Friend said that the Scottish allocation would be "considerably above the formula". The formula suggested by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is on a per capita basis, and this raises a basic issue. Under a devolved Assembly, for how much longer are we Scots to be allowed to get more than our share? This is a substantial issue.
Under an Assembly, one of the facts of life will be that people from the other regions of the United Kingdom will be watching like hawks, in a way that they have never done before, to see precisely how much the Scots receive. It is just no good the Secretary of State saying that he expects it will be "considerably above". On what basis shall we get considerably above our per capita share and expect once again, over a long period, to get the best of all possible worlds?
We come back to a basic difficulty. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to a discussion in the Treasury. I think that this is the first that the House has heard of a Treasury examination to determine the size of the block grant. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been present I should have put to him, as the Member of Parliament for Leeds, East, a blunt question: for how long will he tolerate a per capita allocation to Edinburgh or any other Scottish constituency or industrial area that is higher than that provided for Leeds?
Until the Bill was introduced it was possible that these things were accepted as the basis of regional policy, but for how much longer will the present situation be accepted? The Secretary of State's speech let many cats out of some bags and confirmed the worst fears and basic objections that many of us have had to this legislation.
My right hon. Friend referred to some kind of independent advisory body. I have heard virtually every speech during 35 days of debate on this Bill and the previous Bill. I do not know whether I shall be corrected when I say that this is the first time that I have heard of the existence of this independent advisory body.

Mr. Millan: It is in the White Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: I thought it was a new independent advisory body. I stand corrected.
There are some issues that arise from the discussion on the rate support grant. One is the increasing worry of heavyweight local authority councillors in Scotland—I have in mind Charles Snedden, chairman of the finance committee of Central Region, Ronald Young, and others—who have to deal with finance on a regional basis. They are expressing irritation at having to deal with not only a Scottish Assembly but the United Kingdom Treasury. They are irritated at having to deal with two organisations, whereas before there was only one.
That is the view of those who have to deal with this matter. The issue arose during my right hon. Friend's speech, and I leave the matter with a question to him: am I wrong in my first remarks that the fact that there will be considerably more per capita for Scotland is a reason for rejecting New Clause 3? If I am wrong about that, doubtless my right hon. Friend will tell me.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am sure that the Government Front Bench will again be grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for intervening in this debate. He is the only Labour Member on the Back Benches to have taken part in debating what we consider to be an extremely important matter. The point that he makes is one which we drew from the Secretary of State's remarks a few minutes ago.
The Secretary of State said, in connection with New Clause No. 3, that Scotland would continue to be given a greater proportion of public expenditure per capita on devolved services than England and Wales. I hope that he will make it clear that that was not an off-the-cuff commitment but represented the considered view of the Cabinet and is something about which he is prepared to make a formal commitment.

Mr. Dalyell: If it is the considered view of the Cabinet, how long does the hon. Member suggest that such a considered view will endure?

Mr. Fletcher: I was about to come to that point. It would be a little more viable if the House could know whether that was an off-the-cuff remark by the Secretary of State or whether he has the authority of the Cabinet to make such a comment.
In a typically strong speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) asked a particularly important question about the SNP contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) has tried to impress the House by talking about the wealth that exists in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South asked where that wealth was. There was no specific reply to that question, just the usual generalities one receives all the time from the SNP Bench, or that part of the Bench temporarily occupied by the SNP.
I draw the attention of the House to the debates in the Committee when claims were made by the SNP, particularly by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), regarding the financial institutions in Scotland which he suggested were very much owned by Scots and were part of the Scottish scene. The institutions mentioned in the debate—I challenged the hon. Member at the time—were the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland and General Accident.
I asked the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire on what basis he referred to those as Scottish institutions. Again, he evaded the question. Since then I have taken the trouble to write to the General Accident insurance company, the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank


of Scotland to confirm the point that was obvious to us at the time, namely, that these three institutions are owned by shareholders throughout the United Kingdom, the majority of whom are in England. That might have been known to most hon. Members as a simple fact, but not, apparently, to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire. If we look at Scottish public companies generally from giants such as DCL and J.&P. Coats down to the more modest companies, we find that the bulk of the shareholders, and therefore of the wealth, reside in other parts of the United Kingdom than Scotland.
Money is at the root of all evil, and certainly it is at the root of those things which are superficially attractive. The superficial attraction of the Bill, to some people in Scotland at least, is that they think that they would be better off in economic and financial terms if the Bill were implemented. The new clause makes it necessary for the Secretary of State, in presenting the block grant to the House, to inform Parliament of comparative expenditure between Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales on the other. This provision in included to try to get some reality into the debate and into the negotiations and the debates that may take place concerning the block grant.
It is clear that no contribution to this or previous debates has informed the House or the people of Scotland how Scotland would be better off financially or how its economic prospects would be improved if the Bill were implemented.
8.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), speaking in the debate on 10th January this year, reported at column 1599 of Hansard, made remarks that were repeated this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) regarding the advantage of 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. in per capita terms that Scotland enjoys at present and has enjoyed for some years in respect of devolved expenditure.
It has also been pointed out that the Assembly's taxation powers are a form of indirect taxation whereby the block grant could be denied, at least in part, to

local authorities as part of their expenditure on essential services, thereby forcing them to increase rates. This adds up, in our opinion, to a totally unsatisfactory financial provision in the Bill.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, during this debate and in previous debates, this is a natural source of division and discontent. It is an obvious advantage to those whose main aim—indeed, whose sole aim—is the break-up of the United Kingdom. The SNP amendment pleads for oil revenue to be taken into account in calculating the financial position of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. It ignores other people's rights in relation to North Sea oil, not least the rights of the Shetland Islands, where two-thirds of North Sea oil will be landed and therefore two-thirds of the wealth accruing to the United Kingdom will be looked after.
I sometimes think, listening to the debates over many years, listening to Labour Members and in relatively recent years SNP Members, that the Labour Party and the SNP deserve each other. For many years the Labour Party has preached the politics of envy. Now we have to listen to SNP Members preaching the policy of greed. They deserve each other; but Scotland deserves better.
We should ask the SNP, with all its claims about North Sea oil, how much Scottish money has been directly invested in the North Sea. That is one of the embarrassing facts and figures that the SNP is not keen to supply on any of these occasions.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is talking about the injection of Scottish money, as he knows that quite a lot of the money that has been injected is American money or multinational money. The share of resources that will go to the United Kingdom, which his Government, if there is ever another Conservative Government, would propose to spend, is a taxation share. That taxation share would be equally available to a Scottish or United Kingdom Government, or, indeed, if some hon. Members have their way, an EEC Government.

Mr. Fletcher: I was trying to say earlier, when talking about the Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland and


General Accident in Scotland, that ownership and possession of such institutions was closely connected with shareholders' investment. I am trying to suggest now, with regard to North Sea oil and the claims of the SNP, that there should be some connection between the investment and the funds that have been used to exploit North Sea oil, if one is to make the sort of comparisons that are made there.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, went much further, as he always does, when he complained that expenditure comparisons were selective. He then proceeded to mention only one omission—that of defence. The only fault that he could find in the expenditure comparisons was that there was no allocation of defence expenditure on a per capita basis throughout the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that Scotland benefits to a considerable extent through United Kingdom defence expenditure at present. He should remember also that the SNP policies would throw out all the existing defence bases in Scotland, particularly the nuclear bases at Rosyth and Gareloch. Therefore, the SNP's attitude to defence is, like everything else, an extremely flexible and dishonest approach to the whole policy. It is an attitude and policy that would reduce employment in Scotland and make hardly any contribution to the nation's wealth. The loss could never be replaced by any toy army, navy or air force that the hon. Gentleman might propose.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) talked about the English regions noticing Scotland's expenditure advantages. Why should they not notice them? Why should the hon. Gentleman be surprised, particularly if Scottish hon. Members such as he ridicule and despise the present system, which works unmistakably to Scotland's advantage? I am sure that he would not wish to deny that it does. Listening to the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate and his talk about satisfactory methods, his statement that anything that is good now might be continued, made me wonder what all the fuss was about and why the hon. Gentleman can think that supporting the Bill such as this is worth while, that it will in any way benefit his constituents.
It is typical of all the debates we have had that nobody speaks for the Bill, that nobody presents any advantages of the Bill. The Government Front Bench tries to answer the more detailed and technical points, but its enthusiasm for the Bill is just about as low as that in any other part of the House—and, indeed, in any part of Scotland, despite the inaccurate opinion poll findings in the Press earlier this week. The real opinion poll will be the referendum, which will say precisely the oposite to that poll.
The point is that Scotland is being misled, particularly by the sort of financial talk we have heard tonight, and by the financial provisions and the packaging built around them in presenting the Bill in Scotland. It is presented very differently in Scotland from the way in which it is presented in this House. That is an obstacle that some of us may have to overcome in the referendum. We have plenty of time.
The House can no longer dodge the issue. The Bill is almost totally opposed by hon. Members. We cannot much longer continue with the House refusing to give an honest lead to the people, with hon. Members continuing to speak passionately against the Bill and yet to vote for it.
The Secretary of State said, referring particularly to New Clause 2, that the information was already available and could be found elsewhere or presented from other sources. I do not quibble with that. But what we consider important is that the information should be part of the specific considerations at the time the block grant is debated. That is why we think the information has a special significance, along with the other facts and figures that may be provided during those debates.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of a search for a way to plan ahead financially. He talked about the formula approach. He will excuse our scepticism, in view of the constant changes in United Kingdom expenditure plans throughout the fiscal year. Clearly the formula plan, the four-year planning system, was put in as a sop to the Liberals and has no prospect of being at all successful.
We are trying to introduce some realism, not into this debate but into future block grant debates, so that there


shall be no pretence that anything extra, anything in addition to what is made available financially to Scotland today, will be made available to Scotland simply because the very expensive apparatus of a Scottish Assembly has been set up. I do not think that the Secretary of State can deny that. I do not think that he would even try to deny it. That is why we think the whole business really is a piece of nonsense. That is why in these debates we have tried to clarify the position.

Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman has concluded, may I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I asked him some questions which I think he wanted to answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman may address the House only with leave.

Mr. Millan: I wanted to find out whether we had finished the debate so that I could ask the leave of the House to reply to the specific questions on New Clause 3.
What I said was that on the basis of the needs of Scotland, as I understand them at the moment and as I believe they will be for at least a number of years ahead, I think it inconceivable that the block fund should not be higher per capita than the equivalent expenditure on devolved services for England and Wales. That is the situation at the moment, and I believe that will continue. Therefore, New Clause 3, whatever its intention, would not be a protection for Scotland.

Mr. Brittan: Having enabled the House to ventilate the issues raised by the block grant in a way which was not possible as a result of the guillotine imposed by the Government on the Committee stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

REFERENCE OF ASSEMBLY BILLS TO PRIVY COUNCIL

"If it appears to the Secretary of State that a Bill passed by the Assembly may be incompatible with Community obligations or any

other international obligations of the United Kingdom he shall, before certifying his opinion to that effect to the Assembly, pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of this Act, refer the question whether the Bill is so incompatible to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an opinion, and shall only so certify if the Privy Council expresses the opinion that the Bill is so incompatible."—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take New Clause 5—(Reference to Privy Council following resolution of either House of Parliament)—
Where in the Act it is provided that the Secretary of State may refer a question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he shall also so refer the question if so required by a resolution of either House of Parliament.
We may also take the following amendments:
No. 10, in Clause 19, page 8, line 12, leave out from "Assembly" to end of line 25 and insert
and if he is of opinion that the Bill—

(a) is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly; or
(b) is not compatible with Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom, or provides for matters which are or ought to be provided for in legislation passed by Parliament and implementing any such obligation—

he shall refer the question whether the Bill falls within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an opinion".
No. 11, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
(1A) If so required by resolution of either House of Parliament the Secretary of State shall refer the question whether the Bill falls within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section to the Judicial Committee for an opinion".
No. 12, in page 8, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
(2) A reference under subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of this section may be confined to the question whether any specified provision of the Bill falls within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section".
No. 13, in page 8, line 29, leave out "decision" and insert "opinion".
No. 14, in page 8, line 30, at end insert
but, in any subsequent proceedings in any court, the court will not be bound by, or be required to follow or apply, the opinion of the Judicial Committee on any such question".


No. 15, in page 8, line 31, leave out 'decides' and insert 'is of the opinion that'.
No. 16, in page 8, line 31, leave out
is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly" and insert "or any such specified provision falls within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, or if the question that has been referred to the Judicial Committee is still under consideration".
No. 17, in page 8, line 33, at end insert—
() Subject to the provisions of subsection () of this section, the Secretary of State shall submit the Bill to Her Majesty in Council for approval within 28 days of its passage by the Assembly or of the announcement of the opinion of the Judicial Committee.".

Mr. Brittan: In the Bill it is intended that the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive should not be entitled to act in breach of our European Community or international obligations. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State is the person who has the sole power to decide what is essentially a legal question. The main purpose of the new clause is to ensure that such questions are to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and are not to be decided by the sole fiat of the Secretary of State, as provided at the moment by Clause 19 of the Bill.
The theme of our whole criticism of the Bill has been that it contains, either on the surface or very close below the surface, an immense potential for conflict between the new devolved institutions to be created in Scotland and the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. Nowhere is the potential for conflict greater than in disagreements as to the extent of the powers to be enjoyed by the Scottish Assembly and Executive, and the question whether in a particular case those powers have been exceeded.
It is absolutely crucial, therefore, that there should be an appropriate mechanism for resolving any disputes whether the Scottish Assembly or the Scottish Executive have acted in excess of the powers allotted to them by the Bill.
The Bill, as we have had occasion to consider in other debates, is in effect a written constitution for Scotland which delimits the powers of the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive, and

they can operate only within the powers given by the Bill. But what if there is a dispute whether those powers have been exceeded? How is that to be determined? Initially, the Government wanted many of those questions to be determined on what one might call an administrative or political basis, but subsequently the Government were—in our view, absolutely rightly—persuaded that the basic question of vires, whether the Scottish Assembly or Scottish Executive had acted within or beyond the powers allotted to it, should be determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that there should be a judicial determination where possible, but that in any event a judicial determination of whether the Scottish Assembly or the Scottish Executive had exceeded its powers.
9.0 p.m.
I note with some wry irony that, in spite of the well-known hostility of the Lord President to the courts of this country, he managed to overcome that hostility and his objection to the "trigger-happy judiciary"—as he called it—in another context because the argument in favour of a judicial determination on an essentially legal question was so overwhelming.
Obviously the right hon. Gentleman's latent objections to the courts did not disappear totally. There was a sort of vestigial, antediluvian kind of objection to judicial determination of matters of an essentially legal kind which prevented him from allowing the Judicial Committee to consider one important legal question, namely, whether the Scottish Assembly or the Scottish Executive have acted in a way that is not compatible with European Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom.
Under Clause 19(1)(b), that legal issue is still a matter that the Secretary of State alone shall certify to the Assembly. If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that there has been a breach of Community obligations, or other international obligations, he makes the certification to that effect and then does not submit the Bill to Her Majesty in Council for her approval. The Judicial Committee has no role in the matter. This House has no role in the matter. In our view there can be no possible justification for that whatsoever.
If the Judicial Committee shall consider whether a Bill is within the legislative competence of the Assembly, where it is a question of the construction of the statute, why can it not also be allowed to consider whether the Bill is compatible with Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom?
By definition, Community obligations are legal obligations. They are obligations that, as a matter of international law, we have entered into with our Community partners. By definition, international obligations are legal obligations, because under international law they are obligations that we had entered into with other sovereign countries. One might have thought that the question whether the legislation of a Scottish Assembly conflicts with our international obligations as a legal issue is one peculiarly suitable for determination by the Judicial Committee.
With regard to legality, the Secretary of State's determination is not the end of the matter. In any event it can reach the courts, although not the courts of this country. If there is a breach of a Community obligation it is likely to reach the European Community's own court. If there is a breach of the other international obligations it could reach the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I shall give way in a moment.
Therefore, the determination by the Secretary of State of this question does not rule out the courts altogether. It merely means that no British court is to be allowed to consider the matter. If the Secretary of State has got it wrong, and allows the Assembly to pass a law which is in breach of the Community obligations, he could still be taken to the European Community Court. With regard to international obligations, there may in certain circumstances be the possibility of his being taken to the International Court of Justice. It seems strangely illogical that on what is a legal matter at least as clear as a question of general vires in terms of the Bill's provisions, there should be no reference of the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of defeating his own analysis of the situation? He said that if the Scottish Assembly or the Scottish Executive exceeded the obligations laid down under the Treaty of Rome or, for that matter, any other Community obligation, it could be taken to the European Court. Would it not have been better to present an amendment indicating that to decide these matters there would be an application to the European Court rather than to the Privy Council, which might come to a decision which in itself was capable of being taken further to the European Court?

Mr. Brittan: I should have no objection in principle to approaching it in that way. However, as the Government have elected for the Judicial Committee to be the legal body for considering vires questions, it seems to me that it would be simpler to retain the Judicial Committee, subject to any question of going to the European Court afterwards. But I have no objection in principle to approaching it in that way, and, if the Government said that they would propose an alternative approach by an amendment of that kind, we should want to listen very carefully to what they suggested.
But that is not what the Government have suggested. Instead, in the way that the Bill left Committee, there was simply the say-so of the Secretary of State. He holds himself up on an essentially legal question and decides whether there has been a breach of a Community obligation or any other international obligation. That seems to be a thoroughly objectionable approach and a thoroughly objectionable way of dealing with the situation.
When we discussed the matter at an earlier stage, one of the arguments advanced in answer to the suggestion that there should be a reference to the Judicial Committee on a matter of this kind was the reference in Clause 19(1)(b) not only to Community obligations and to any other international obligations but also to a Bill passed by the Scottish Assembly providing for matters which were or ought to be provided for in legislation passed by Parliament and implementing any such obligation.
Taking the argument put forward by the Government objecting to referring a


matter of that kind to the Judicial Committee, we have deliberately omitted reference to that in our clause, and we are left simply with the straight question of Community obligations or other international obligations, which we thought should be treated as all other vires matters and be referred to the Judicial Committee if the Secretary of State considered that the Assembly had been in breach. That is the basis of New Clause 4, which is the most important of the new clauses and amendments which we are considering in this group.
However, let me refer briefly to one or two of the other amendments. New Clause 5 provides:
Where in the Act it is provided that the Secretary of State may refer a question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he shall also so refer the question if so required by a resolution of either House of Parliament.
As the House will recall, in the Bill as it stands only the Secretary of State can, in advance of the passage of the Scottish Assembly Bill, refer a matter to the Judicial Committee if he thinks that it may be in excess of the powers given by the Scotland Bill to the Scottish Assembly. No one else can refer a matter to the Judicial Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I cannot see why that power should be given exclusively to the Secretary of State.
I can see why every person in the land should not be allowed to refer a matter to the Judicial Committee, because obviously no one would want a trivial reference which someone might wish to make for all sorts of reasons and which plainly would delay matters in an unacceptable way. But surely the House of Commons, if a resolution were passed, would be acting in a responsible way. The House of Commons would be reasonably entitled to expect that, if it considered that there was a doubt about the legality of a piece of Assembly legislation, it should be able to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I would suggest to the Government that this is not such a dangerous thing, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State of the day is likely to have a certain influence with the House of Commons. If, none the less, the House of Commons or the House of Lords decides by resolution to refer the matter to the Judicial Com-

mittee, we suggest that this is reasonable and should be done.
Amendment No. 14 says:
In any subsequent proceedings in any court, the court will not be bound by, or he required to follow or apply, the opinion of the Judicial Committee on any such question.
This arises because in our earlier debates it became clear that as a result of the new schedule the Government have introduced, after a Scottish Assembly Bill has been passed, whether or not it has gone to the Judicial Committee, it will be still possible in subsequent litigation for it to be contended that the Scottish Assembly exceeded its powers and that the matter is therefore ultra vires.
That could be raised in various ways in different courts and in different proceedings. What is not clear is whether the court in considering the matter is bound by the decision of the Judicial Committee if the Bill is referred to it in advance. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear what the Government believe to be the position—that subsequent courts are not bound by the decision of the Judicial Committee that the Bill was within the powers of the Assembly.
The reason for that is that there may be circumstances in which, as an abstract question, it looks as if the Bill which the Scottish Assembly has passed is all right, and is within the powers conferred on the Assembly by the Scotland Bill. However, when one looks in any particular case at the impact of the Bill, the position may appear different. Therefore it is right, if there is a subsequent judicial view, that the Judicial Committee's decision may not be binding in these circumstances.
Amendment No. 17 says:
Subject to the provisions of subsection 4 of this section, the Secretary of State shall submit the Bill to Her Majesty in Council for approval within 28 days of its passage by the Assembly or of the announcement of the opinion of the Judicial Committee.
I hope that the Government will not oppose that amendment. As the Bill stands I do not see that there is any obligation on the Government actually to present a Scottish Assembly Act for approval to Her Majesty in Council even if the Judicial Committee has not been asked to consider it, or if it has considered the matter and has come to the


conclusion that all is well. That is a comparatively minor matter.
The most important matter in this group of amendments is the suggestion that any question of a breach of international and Community obligations should be referred to the Judicial Committee. The purpose of that is exactly the same as references to the Judicial Committee of ordinary vires questions. It would be far more acceptable politically for the Judicial Committee to decide the matter of that kind than for the Secretary of State to do so.
We must envisage a situation in which the Scottish Assembly has passed an Act and the Secretary of State says that it is not to come into law because he sees it as a breach of Community and international obligations. Surely that is a situation redolent of conflict. It will be much more acceptable to the people of Scotland that any case of that kind should be looked at objectively by the Judicial Committee. That Committee will look at it as a matter of law and not as a mixture of law and politics.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: There are two issues on which I wish to comment. First, if the Assembly is set up, we should not imagine that the people in that Assembly, either Ministers or Assemblymen, will be content not to have direct contact with European institutions.
Only today the Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party, Mrs. Helen Liddell, paid a visit to Brussels and Strasbourg and on Radio Scotland expressed the need for direct communication between Scotland and the Community institutions. Once an Assembly is established, many people will have the same view as Mrs. Liddell. It is natural that, if there is to be a subordinate Parliament, that Parliament will want direct links with the institutions of the Community. I remember a protracted correspondence on this topic in The Scotsman in which the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), who is so frequently absent from these debates, took part. I have always conceded that the situation might be different in relation to a separate State.
It is common ground that the institutions of the Community would wish to

deal with the United Kingdom Government and with an Assembly or any of its representatives. That is a fact of life. The Scottish regions are a different matter, and I would welcome their having direct relations with Brussels. But if the institutions of the Community wish to have direct relations with a Scottish Assembly they would have to go very much further than they do now in relation to the German Länder. There would be great problems for the regions of France and, if the Community is enlarged, and Catalonia and the Basque areas are added, it would create great complications for Brussels. At present this is perhaps an unrealistic line of argument.
The second issue on which I wish to comment before going on to the main body of my speech relates to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Those of us who took part in earlier debates are by no means persuaded that the Judicial Committee will not be sucked into the mire of controversial political decision making.
One reason why this Bill should go to the House of Lords is that I hope there will be a full discussion there in which the Law Lords will participate. I refer to people such as Lord Diplock, Lord Denning. Lord Gardiner, Lord Dilhorne. Lord Edmund-Davies and other members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who might be asked to serve on any such committee. It is high time that we had an opinion from those Law Lords about the role which they are being asked to undertake. I need not remind my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council of what he said when the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) dealt with a matter involving Mr. Justice Donaldson, as he then was.
Plainly there are problems involved. Once again we come up against a situation in which we realise that, although we have discussed the problems, we have not solved them.
I understand that from a constitutional point of view devolution is a delegation of power, but politically this Bill will divide legislative power between London and Edinburgh in a manner that is not wholly uncharacteristic of federal States.

Mr. Budgen: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Law Lords,


will he comment on recent reports that Lord Kilbrandon has been campaigning on behalf of those who wish the Bill to be accepted in the referendum? Will the hon. Gentleman comment upon the possibility of Lord Kilbrandon being eligible to sit on a body of judicial review?

Sir David Renton: He is eligible.

Mr. Budgen: Plainly it is an extraordinary anomaly, if Lord Kilbrandon is so eligible, that he should be behaving in this way.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand that, technically, Lord Kilbrandon is eligible. I have thought a great deal about this matter and, in fairness to Lord Kilbrandon, it must be said that, technically, he has every right to do what he has done and to become the head of the campaign for the "Yes" vote because he has retired. No one can say that, legally, he has no right to do that.
On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman's question raises the issue whether it is wise and proper for an ex-High Court judge to enter the maelstrom of politics and I would question that even if he had set himself up to be head of any of the "No" vote campaigns.
Lord Kilbrandon's action dispels any fond belief that anyone may have had that High Court judges do not entertain many of the political prejudices of the rest of us. Did the Minister of State say something? Would he like to intervene?

Mr. John Smith: Certainly not.

Mr. Dalyell: Lord Kilbrandon has confirmed what we have always known, namely, that High Court judges, like the rest of us, have beliefs one way or the other and it is inconceivable that when Lord Kilbrandon took over from Lord Crowther-Hunt at the head of his Commission he did not start with some very strong feelings. I am not saying that it is proper or improper to have those feelings. Lord Kilbrandon is human like the rest of us, but we must drop the pretence that High Court judges are on a different and higher plane from we mortals on this sort of issue.

Mr. Budgen: Bearing in mind that Lord Kilbrandon is not merely a Scottish judge but a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and is still eligible to sit in the House of Lords, is the hon. Gentleman

aware that retired Law Lords are occasionally recalled to sit in another place? As Lord Kilbrandon is eligible and might be recalled, is not the only way he could deal with such a situation to say that in no circumstances would he again sit in a judicial capacity?

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be dragged into too personal a discussion. The Government of the day would probably not invite Lord Kilbrandon to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
If the new arrangements work as intended, the Scottish Assembly will be the supreme authority in Scotland for domestic affairs—it will be the Scottish Parliament. The normal convention will be that Westminster should cease to legislate for Scotland or to intervene in Scotland's internal affairs. Sir Ivor Jennings went so far as to argue that it would have been "unconstitutional" for Westminster to have legislated for Northern Ireland in areas of transferred responsibility without the consent of Stormont.
It is in constitutional theory only, then, that full legislative power remains with London and the unitary State is preserved. In practice, political power is transferred and cannot, except under pathological circumstances, be recovered. The formal assertion of parliamentary supremacy as the supreme authority to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it in the now deleted Clause 1 of the Bill becomes an empty assertion because it will no longer be accompanied by a real political supremacy.
In Scotland at least the supremacy of Parliament is bound to bear a different and more attenuated meaning after the Assembly is set up, if it is set up. For Westminster, instead of enjoying a regular and continuous exercise of supremacy, will possess merely a nebulous right to supervise the Assembly. Political authority, however, depends upon its regular and continuous exercise; it is not the mere incursion of legislative authority once every 10 years, 15 years or 20 years. For in these circumstances the assertion of supremacy would become so empty that it could eventually be given effect only by what would in reality be a revolutionary act. Thus, Westminster's supremacy in Scotland, which was once a real power


to make laws affecting Scotland's domestic affairs, now becomes the power to supervise another legislative body that makes law over a wide area of public policy. The political reality of a supreme law-making authority becomes nothing more than the right to put an end to the Scottish Assembly by what would in reality be a revolutionary act.
The Scotland Bill will thus establish, if not a federal constitution regulating the relationship between England and Scotland, a quasi-federal form of government. It will establish a de facto division of powers between England and Scotland. Moreover, it buttresses this division of powers through the agency of an embryonic constitutional court in the form of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I believe that it is an embryonic constitutional court that we are willy-nilly setting up, whether we know it or whether we do not. For it is this judicial body that will determine whether a Bill passed by the Assembly lies within its legislative competence. It will be able to decide not only upon the construction of a Bill—the normal role of the courts in the United Kingdom—but upon its validity as legislation. In other words, the Judicial Committee will be exercising the function of judicial review, and this is a novel function, always excepting the Northern Ireland experience, for a United Kingdom court to exercise.
The scope of judicial review will be limited since it will involve only the review of Scottish legislation and not Westminster's, whereas the United States Supreme Court can review the legislation both of the Federal Government and of the States. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, this distinction may be less important than it appears. For example, the Judicial Committee may have to ask iitself whether a Scottish Bill is an instance of legislation relating to health, which is a devolved service, or of drugs or social security, which are not devolved. That is just the sort of question that judiciaries in federal States are accustomed to consider.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will help us by telling us from what document he is quoting.

Mr. Dalyell: No, I am not prepared to do so.

Mr. John Smith: Oh.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not prepared to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I tell the House frankly that I have been given the document as a statement of a legal point of view, but it is not attributable and I shall honour that understanding. I am putting an argument that I consider to be highly relevant.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Speak with your own voice.

Mr. Dalyell: This is one of the difficulties, Mr. Speaker. I am told by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to speak with my own voice. I think that the House will concede that for 35 days I have done little else than speak with my own voice.

The Lord Advocate: I withdraw that comment.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not a lawyer, but I read the document carefully because with a subject as difficult as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, certain questions should be asked. If there had been a Labour Back-Bench lawyer, it would have been more proper that these questions should have been asked by him.
9.30 p.m.
The question that I ask is whether, by using the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this way, we are setting up a quasi-constitutional court. If the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) believes that I should not quote carefully thought-out documents, I stand rebuked. But it is a little difficult, when discussing matters such as these, to suggest that a non-lawyer, on the important matter of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and in order to save the time of the House—I choose my words with the utmost care—should not quote from documents.
I leave it at that. I think that I am justified in asking whether we are setting up a quasi-judicial court in this country by this particular use of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Sir David Renton: I think that for the first time throughout our long debates on the Scotland Bill I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for West


Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I do not in any way dispute his motives, his sincerity or even his method. However, when he was quoting at great length from an obviously carefully prepared document, with the contents of which I am in the main in disagreement, I could not help thinking that it would either add to or diminish the weight of his argument if he told us the source of the document. It is common practice in the House of Commons, and I was merely resorting to it.
I appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself in that there is no Labour Back-Bench lawyer with whom he could have conferred about this matter. But any of my hon. Friends at the Scottish Bar would, I am sure, have been only too glad to discuss the matter with him.
As a member of the English Bar, I should like to do my poor best to answer some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian. He referred to Lord Kilbrandon. I think that I should put on record—I hope accurately—Lord Kilbrandon's present position. Having been a distinguished Lord of Session, Lord Kilbrandon became a Lord of Appeal and since his retirement he has been eligible to be called to serve as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, for two reasons: first, because he is a Privy Councillor and, secondly, because he has held high judicial office.
Theoretically, he could be called in to decide any question upon which it fell to the Judicial Committee to give an opinion if and when the Bill became law and were implemented. Knowing Lord Kilbrandon as well as I do, I am quite certain that if he found himself in that position, his own political instincts would be cast aside and he would act with complete intellectual integrity as a lawyer and decide the issue from a purely legal point of view.
Having said that, and bearing in mind that it might not be essential to call him in to serve at a particular meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at which such an issue might arise, I should have thought that those who arrange these matters would probably ensure that he did not sit on the Judicial Committee on such an occasion. I hope that we may leave the matter there and

that that will assure the hon. Member for West Lothian.

Mr. Dalyell: I did not raise the subject of Lord Kilbrandon in the first place.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Member referred to Lord Kilbrandon at some length and I thought it right to reply.
I turn to the suggestion that in using the services of the Privy Council, as the Government propose, Parliament would be setting up a constitutional court. The hon. Member for West Lothian implies that it would be a new type of constitutional court. There would be nothing new about it. The Privy Council has been deciding constitutional matters which affect the Commonwealth and some of the internal affairs of this country—I am tempted to say since the beginning of time but it is not quite as long ago as Adam and Eve—for, I hazard a guess, the last 150 years. Its competence to decide these matters is undoubted.
In view of the tremendous reputation that the Privy Council has acquired throughout the Commonwealth, even in those countries which no longer accept its jurisdiction, I rejoice at the prospect that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might have to decide matters involving the European Economic Community and Community laws and their effect upon devolution for Scotland, if such should happen.
This is a rather felicitous example—one of the few that have arisen—of the two sides in the House of Commons coming together to hammer out the right solution. I recollect, as other hon. Members no doubt will, that when the Government produced the White Paper, which was the foundation of this Bill, in the winter of 1975 and which was debated in January 1976, it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, in a constructive way, said that any question of vires should be decided not by a Minister, as was the proposition then, but by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government accepted that proposition and it is to be found, to the extent that it has been accepted, in Clause 19.
In New Clauses 4 and 5 and Amendments Nos. 10 and 17 my right hon. and hon. Friends are carrying that concept a step further. I think that they are right


to do so. I cannot imagine any body other than the Judicial Committee which would be more suitable to decide, as New Clause 4 proposes, the incompatibility of a Bill passed by the Assembly with Community obligations or any other international obligations. It is an extension of the kind of issue that it has had to decide in the past. It is not beyond its capability. It is well within its tradition and its broad-minded approach to jurisprudence all over the world.
New Clause 5 has the advantage that it does not merely leave it to the Secretary of State to decide whether a matter should be referred to the Privy Council but provides that Parliament shall have the opportunity of doing so. Surely that is right. It would be much too restrictive to leave it to the discretion of the individual Minister and deprive Parliament of this opportunity. It is to be by means of a resolution of the House—and that means an affirmative resolution.
I feel that the Government should welcome these new clauses and amendments. They should generously acknowledge that a concept that was offered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and accepted by the Government should be carried the stages further that have been proposed so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby. We hope that there will be a happy outcome to this debate.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It is curious that under Clause 19(1)(a) questions of the legislative competence of the Assembly should be referred to a court, but questions of compatibility with international obligations should not. That is such a self-evident query that I hope that the Minister of State, or perhaps the Lord Advocate, because he will be even more welcome, will be able to explain why this distinction has been drawn. If anything could be said to be suitable for decision by an independent judicial body it must be something like external legal obligations.
The Bill is proposing that there should be a ministerial decision on a question of law. That is what the Government seem to be out to achieve by rejecting, as I imagine they will, the new clause. This is a serious matter, because the Minister will thereby be usurping the function of

a court in determining a question of this kind.
The curious thing is that the Government—indeed, in this respect most governments—are not reluctant to use judges to pick their hot potatoes out of the fire on political questions. Only too often the Government have found it convenient to dispose of a thorny and difficult political question by referring the matter to a judge, to a court or to some kind of committee of inquiry. But they are not always successful in ridding themselves of an embarrassing problem in doing so. When the Scarman Inquiry reported on the Grunwick affair that was a notable failure in this respect and the Government did not get off the hook.
It has been a well-honoured tradition for the Government of the day to refer questions of political judgment for judicial decision because of the virtues of the judicial approach. However, the Government seem to be rejecting that approach in this case, even though it has been used so often in the past. Let us consider, for example, the use of the Donovan Commission which, headed by a distinguished judge, was able to survey the whole of trade union law and the state of labour relations generally. Many a judge has been brought into solve questions of political importance—and almost exclusively political importance.
At present, a distinguished judge is looking at the question—no law is involved—of police pay and conditions. The reason is that this will eventually get the Government off the hook. When Lord Edmund-Davies makes his recommendations, the Government will be able to say "Here was an unprejudiced, cool, objective judicial assessment of this problem, and we are not partisan. We are not politically prejudiced, because everybody knows that this judge is above all such considerations and is looking at the problem objectively, and what he says"—inevitably they had to accept his report beforehand—"will be accepted". That is a very honourable tradition.
9.45 p.m.
I remind the House that this tradition is a long one. For example, it calls to mind the passing of the Extradition Act 1870 which first put into legislative form, in a permanent sense, the idea of political asylum. It was necessary to


put into the Bill the concept of the exception from extradition of offences of a political character. One would have thought in that context that Parliament would have inserted into the Bill a definition of what are offences of a political character for which extradition was not possible, in honouring the tradition of political asylum. Although a Select Committee of this House wrestled with the problem for many days and included such great luminaries as John Stuart Mill, at the end of the day it could not come up with any definition of what constituted political offences or an offence of a political character.
The Attorney-General of the day, moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that the question of definition of political offences was as difficult as that of the Ulster Custom. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will know something about that. I certainly do not, but it must have been a difficult problem at the time. The question, the Attorney-General said, was therefore left to the courts to decide. That was the way out for the Government of 1870 on this purely political problem—to say to the courts that where the offence was of a political character extradition from England should not take place.
We have a similar situation occurring today from time to time. But the Government have reversed this provision and here they are saying, on this thorny question of enforcement of international obligations vis-à-vis the Scottish Assembly, that the decision of the Minister on a point of law shall be final. There is no question of reference to a court of law for determination of this point of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is right to say that we must insert this judicial element into the phraseology of the Bill. If we do not, we shall continue with the old problem of the discretionary powers of Ministers.
We know how Ministers in this Government have abused those powers and continue to do so. The judges have said so. It needs only one case to come before the judges for the law to be established that the Government may not act in any such manner at all under the law of this country.
New Clause 5 asserts the supremacy of Parliament, a principle which we continually say we stand by but which, almost every day in this Parliament, we are eroding, particularly with this Bill. We can well be suspicious of the use of ministerial discretion in view of the history of this Government. It may be that in this clause we are giving a Minister the power to do something which, if it were put to the House, would not be approved. It is perfectly proper in law and as an exercise of the supermacy of Parliament that decisions of this kind should be overseen or at least should be subject to the power of either House of Parliament deciding that the matter should be referred for judicial decision.
On those two points my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby is absolutely right. When the Government consider the import and significance of the clause I am sure that they will accept that.

Mr. Gow: The new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and the amendments seek to bring into the Bill the safeguard of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If ever there were a time when we needed to interpose a safeguard between the Executive and the people, that time is now.
You might think, Mr. Speaker, as you glance to your right at the serried ranks of ministerial supporters upon the Back Benches, that you were dealing with a Government that had a great respect for the rule of law. If you look, Mr. Speaker, at the Minister of State and the Lord Advocate, who is gracing the House with his presence on one of the rare occasions that he has done so during the passage of the Bill, you might think that you were looking at benign, friendly Ministers who were always faithful to the rule of law. But any such suspicion that you might have, Mr. Speaker, would unhappily be dashed if you examined the record of Her Majesty's Ministers over the past four years, for they cannot be relied upon to remain failthful to the rule of law.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who has just joined the Treasury Bench, is not immune to criticism in this regard, because the Department of Industry, like other Departments, is


exercising ministerial discretion not in accordance with the rule of law but in accordance with the political prejudices of the Treasury Bench. I see the Lord Commissioner—no less—of the Treasury seated upon the Treasury Bench. He and I have the good fortune to be serving on the Committee dealing with the Transport Bill. It could not be said of the Government that their discretionary powers are exercised always in accordance with the rule of law and never in accordance with their own political prejudices. That is why it is so important that the new clause and the amendments suggested by my hon. Friends should seek to interpose between the Executive and the people a body which all of us know to be wholly independent, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Even the Lord Advocate, chattering as he is to one of his hon. Friends, has made no attack upon the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is because we are so doubtful about the objectivity of the judgment of Her Majesty's Ministers that we regard the new clause and the amendments as being so important.
The memory of occupants of the Chair is sometimes discretionary, but it is important to remind the House of the affair of the television licences, when a Minister of the Crown, the Home Secretary, sought to exercise, and purported to exercise, a power in relation to television licences which the High Court eventually found to be wholly unlawful. The same thing happened in the Tameside case. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), one of the heroes of this Parliament, rightly reminds the House that we do not stop at Tameside. We do not stop at television licences. There is a continuing element to which he has rightly draw the attention of the House.

Sir Frederic Bennett: While my hon. Friend is on this very important point, would he care to place on the record for the first time the fact that since the Government came to office in 1974 there have been more judicial decisions that Ministers have acted ultra vires than in the whole preceding quarter century?

Mr. Gow: If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend will be able to develop that point at greater length. I was making a more modest criticism of

the Government. I was not going back over a quarter of a century but was referring only to the past four years. That is enough. We see the growing tendency of Ministers to act unconstitutionally, unlawfully, and not in accordance with the rule of law but in order to advance what they consider to be the Labour Party's political interests.
That is why the existing Clause 19 is not enough and why there is an overriding need for the new clause and the amendments. There is a growing awareness outside the House that the arrogance of Ministers of the Crown needs to be curtailed, and that the only safeguard for the people is the independent judiciary.
Therefore, I support the new clause and the amendments. I am confident that the House, as it has once before this evening, will overthrow the arrogance of the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Michael Latham: It is particularly important that we should have on the Government Front Bench a Foreign Office Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He has not so far wanted to take part in the debate, but there is no doubt plenty of time for him to do so.
The hon. Gentleman's presence is important because the proposals in Clause 19(1)(b) represent an attitude toward diplomacy and international obligations which is already becoming obsolete. It is the attitude of what I think Louis XIV called the secrét du roi, the idea that foreign affairs and diplomacy are entirely matters for the Executive, and that Parliament's responsibility is to look the other way, not to discuss these matters and certainly not to be involved in the details of diplomacy.

Mr. Gow: Where is the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Latham: Perhaps I should not intrude upon private grief.

Mr. Gow: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is in Mozambique.

Mr. Latham: No. He was in Terrace Room A, earlier this evening. If he has returned from Mozambique, he has come back very quickly.
New Clause 5 seems to me a very reasonable balance to new Clause 4. There is an important distinction between


the role of the Privy Council in surveying Community or other international obligations and the position of this House. Diplomacy is not, in modern thinking, solely matters for the Executive, to be discussed behind closed doors. It is also a matter to be discussed in detail in this House.
Let us take as an example the present position in the Middle East. I shall not try your patience at great length, Mr. Speaker. I am merely making an allusion in order to illustrate my point. The problems in the Middle East need to be brought out clearly, because there are strongly felt issues on both sides. The idea that one can sort out the Middle East behind closed doors, ignoring the real wishes of the people, is ludicrous. One cannot have effective participation in that way.
The same applies to all our international obligations. The idea that one can exclude the House in examining whether international obligations are involved, in a matter as important as the devolution of Government to Scotland, is totally out of accord with modern thinking on participation.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Snape.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

As amended, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Latham: As I was saying before those procedural issues were dealt with by you, Mr. Speaker, the House has a very important role to play, and it is well described in New Clause 5.
As for the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is quite some time since I was involved in studying these matters of constitutional history, but I remember the very important role that the Judicial Com-

mittee played in respect of the development of the constitution of Canada and in the development of the Commonwealth of Australia, as also with regard to the devolved Parliament of Northern Ireland. In these instances the Judicial Committee had a very important role, which it played with great distinction and authority, producing in the process a great many leading cases.
If we are concerned with something as important as a new form of government for Scotland, there is no better body than the Judicial Committee to make decisions in that regard. I am at a complete loss to understand why Ministers should want to resist a clause of this kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), in a characteristically trenchant and valuable contribution to the discussions, put his finger directly on the issue, which is the discretionary powers of Ministers and the likelihood that they will not report back to the House in any effective way.
I am sorry that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench seem to regard this as an amusing matter. Certainly the country does not regard it in that way. Large firms go on to a secret black list and they are robbed of their livelihood in secret by Star Chamber courts. This is not regarded by the country in any way as an amusing matter. We are discussing in the Bill an attempt to restrict the discretionary power of Ministers.
Under Clause 19(1)(a), the question of the legislative competence of the Assembly can be a matter for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That was originally not intended by the then Lord President of the Council, now Lord Glenamara. It is intended by the present Lord President of the Council as an attempt to buy off the minority parties in this House, most of whose members are not present. I am talking about the Liberal Party, the third arm of the Government. No one was in any doubt about buying off the right hon. Member for Western. Isles (Mr. Stewart) in regard to devolution—

Mr. Gow: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that, happily, the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will have the opportunity of recording his approval of the new clause if by chance this House should not approve it?

Mr. Latham: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a most important issue—the rights of another place, under the constitution, to give lull discussion to the Bill, and in particular to those parts of it which have been guillotined in this House and not properly discussed by this House. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will play a full part in the discussions in another place on this issue, and many of my noble Friends in the Conservative Party and many Labour Lords will no doubt do so as well.
If it is considered to be suitable for the Privy Council to discuss the legislative competence of the Assembly with regard to the vires of any particular Bill, why should not we in 1978, when we are concerned with oven diplomacy—with open government openly arrived at, as I believe Woodrow Wilson put it—have questions referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by a resolution of either House? That must be right in 1978.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have done a signal service to the House in bringing these new clauses before it. I am sure that several of us will want to commend these new clauses to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ivor Rees.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am happy to respond under whatever Christian name you may allocate to me for the moment, Mr. Speaker.
When I read New Clauses 4 and 5 I thought they were so eminently sensible, so reasonable and so carefully drafted that I could not conceive that there would be any serious resistance to them from the Government Front Bench. I thought that no assistance from me would be necessary to carry them into law—[Interruption.] I am encouraged by the plaudits from the other side to think that perhaps I have a modest role to play in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "A significant role."] Modest up to now, but it may become significant. I wait to see.
To understand the new clauses one must refer back to Clause 19, because there is a significant distinction between subsection 1(a) and subsection 1(b). From a cursory reading—it may well be that I shall be corrected by the Lord Advocate

who has a keener, sharper legal eye than many of us—it would seem that the Government feel that matters that are of domestic competence and domestic legal significance should be referred by the Minister—whether the Secretary of State or an Under-Secretary of State—to the Privy Council when they feel there may be some conflict between the jurisdiction of this House and the Scottish Assembly. That one can well understand.
If I may presume to say so, I applaud the caution and the constitutionality of this particular provision. It is right that these matters should not be decided by the discretion or the mere lay eye of a Secretary of State, however distinguished, because there may be fine matters of construction that have to be determined. Whatever merits we may have in this House—I for one would claim great merits—I do not feel that we can always bring a clear, unclouded, judicial eye to bear on these fine matters.
Whatever we may do upstairs in Standing Committee, I think that these are matters to be left to the courts. But surprisingly, when we come to subsection (1)(b), it appears that with regard to matters which to my simple way of thinking are of even greater importance, our Community obligations and international duties—if there be the possibility of conflict between what the Assembly chooses to enact and what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or some other high Minister of State, should regard as an international obligation of this country—these can be determined in his discretion. They may be matters as fine as, if not finer than, those that must as a necessity be referred to the Privy Council. I am personally at a loss to see why this distinction should have been introduced in this clause.
As I understand it, the new clauses were designed to draw attention tot his distinction and perhaps to put right an anomaly that may have crept in through inadvertence, though I am always reluctant to ascribe inadvertence to the Lord Advocate or to the Minister because I know how assiduously they have supported this Bill even though it may actually be distasteful to them. Therefore, I look around to find some sound reason for this distinction and some found reason why the Government are resisting these eminently sensible new clauses.
I can find only three. I must say that none of them reflects any credit on the Adminstration. The first must be that with regard to our external or international obligations—perhaps to the Community or to other countries with which we are in friendly alliance—they are of less importance than these fine matters of domestic disputation. Of course, judging from the conduct of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—and more recently of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that could well be the view that the Government take of our external obligations. I do not want to be led into these areas of foreign affairs, important though they may be. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule me out of order if I ventured into them. But this is perhaps one discreditable reason for the resistance which the Government are offering.

Sir David Renton: It is with some hesitation that I venture to intervene in my hon. and learned Friend's interesting speech, but has not he overlooked the fact that international obligations, now that we are in the EEC, can in fact become commensurate with law applicable in this country?

Mr. Rees: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. He reinforces my argument. There is a vast area of Community obligations which are directly applicable and which may be a matter for consideration by our courts. It is equally true that some of these matters may have to be taken to the European Court. But, be that as it may, I should have thought that these were matters on which it would be most important to have a ruling of the Privy Council.
In case those right hon. and hon. Members who represent the Scottish National Party in this House take exception to the new clauses, I suggest to them that it could be that a Secretary of State who was not well disposed to some extreme measure introduced by them and their hon. Friends in some Scottish Assembly might block it on the pretext that it conflicted with some international obligations. What in those circumstances would be their remedy? It may be that they could force a debate in this House. It may conceivably be that they could mount litigation under Clause 61. But these are difficult and devious matters. A

much simpler remedy is to hand, and it is to accept the new clauses.
I hope that, before a Division is called, we shall hear the voice of the Scottish National Party and be able to judge whether right hon. and hon. Members in that party have pondered these clauses as closely as my right hon. and hon. Friends have done.
That is the first pretext that I find, and I do not find it a very honourable one.
The next pretext is even more specious and even less attractive. We know, alas, from too many debates and too many interventions that there is a pathological distrust among Government supporters of the judiciary, whether it be south or north of the border. We have heard all too often that judges are drawn from too narrow an economic and social reservoir.

Mr. James Lamond: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rees: My suspicions are amply confirmed by the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), who perhaps will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to amplify his suspicions. But I have no doubt that we shall hear only a parrot-like repetition of what we have heard on too many occasions from Government supporters who sit below the Gangway.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It may interest Government supporters to know that perhaps the judge of the greatest celebration in Scotland is Lord Braxfield, who was the son of a blacksmith. He probably held the views which were least attractive to them. When he sentenced to death his best friend, with whom he used to play chess, he said "Well, that's checkmate noo, Wullie."

Mr. Rees: We are always grateful for the interventions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). However, as I am singularly ignorant of the background and the record of that distinguished member of the Court of Session, it would be perhaps straying a little wide of your patience, Mr. Speaker, if I attempted to develop that intervention any further.
I was about to say that I should hesitate to remind the Treasury Bench which


distinguished member of the Cabinet referred to
a trigger happy judicial finger",
but I hardly feel that the Lord Advocate or the Minister of State, who are both distinguished members of the legal profession north of the border, and may have honourable ambitions to be included in the Court of Session, nourish such suspicions about the judiciary. I hope that in due course they will join the Bench and add distinction to its deliberations. Whether they will sentence their best friends to death or to long terms of penal servitude remains to be seen. I am not called upon to speculate on that tonight. That could be the second possible reason. The Government have this paranoic suspicion, they see a twitching forest of judicial fingers through which the provisions of this Bill have to thread their way. They should know better than to succumb to that kind of fear.
10.15 p.m.
The third reason is even less creditable. They hope to reserve another large area for the exercise of ministerial discretion. My hon. Friends say "Hear, hear", and in doing so they encourage me to think that my suspicions in this direction are not as unworthy as I first thought they might be.
I am permitted to make these suggestions because of the two unhappy experiences in this House last week and again this week. We on this side of the House were unhappy because we were not able to persuade the House that the measures proposed were as destructive of constitutional propriety and judicial rectitude as we thought. Ministers were unhappy, too, perhaps a little less than we were, because the verdicts were not so overwhelmingly confirmative of their aspirations as they would have liked.
We are entitled to ask them about this area of ministerial discretion that they wish to reserve to themselves. I ask the Scottish National Party representatives whether they are happy about this considerable area of ministerial discretion in a very delicate area. Should this be reserved for the Secretary of State? The SNP's choicest measures might be blocked on the pretext—perhaps a specious one—that they are offending against the international obligations of this country.
I hope that my suspicions will be proved unfounded and unworthy of my hon. Friends and myself. However there is a considerable onus on the Government Front Bench to reassure the House and not just give the same reply as they gave to the debates last week and this week.

Mr. A. P. Costain: It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that in the whole progress of debates on the Scotland Bill I have been like the proverbial schoolboy—seen and not heard. I have been following the debates with a great deal of interest but basically my two concerns have been whether the Bill will affect the unity of the United Kingdom, and whether, by dividing and ruling, it will give Ministers special power and privileges.
For that reason I intervene on this new clause. I consider it a matter of extreme importance. One of the dangers in devolution is the whole idea of Scotland being something different from England. This creates a problem which makes the Scottish nationalist Members laugh but for generations they have had the benefit of the unity of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has been heard and seen a lot in these debates. He spoke on this new clause but he left me in some doubt whether he was in favour of it. I am basically in favour of the new clause because I believe that the Privy Council has done so much to ease problems, particularly in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman this serious question: is the Privy Council now to be used as a quasi-constitutional court?

Mr. Costain: I do not necessarily say that it should be used in that way, but it needs to be an effective arbitrator in respect of various obligations which the United Kingdom possesses. I was brought up in an industry in which every clause contained a provision for arbitration. In this case we have a clause that will give us the benefit of such a provision.
One of my objections to devolution as set out in the Bill is that there will be a tendency for some hon. Members to regard Scotland as something that is quite different and away from the United Kingdom. They see this matter in terms of power politics and they think, for example, of a Prime Minister of Scotland. I believe that such an attitude will weaken the unity of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, we need to have a quick way of reaching a decision rather than to reply on some new court in Europe or some other outside body. Therefore, I believe that on this clause we should accept the advice which has been given to us by the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Fairbairn: This clause raises important matters of principle. It is expected that the Bill will raise major matters related to powers and rights. The first half of Clause 19 relates to the activities of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is a departure in Scotland that any matter of this sort involving power should be remitted to that Committee. That body has been chosen as the appointed court to sort out disputes on power, and that aspect no doubt will be raised by those who seek to bring out of the Assembly matters related to independence. They will seek to make political capital out of it.
I should like to inform the House of the fact that SNP Members in this House have a political director. He was on Grampian Television recently and said that the referendum should be on the basis that those who vote—and this was his instruction to party workers—"Yes" are voting for Scotland, whereas those who vote "No" were traitors. It is an extremely dangerous matter if these problems are to be dealt with on the basis of football match loyalties
It will be a dangerous constitutional concept if football match loyalties have to be decided by the Judical Committee of the Privy Council. I fear that whatever that body decides, it will inevitably be said to be prejudiced by the judges. Perhaps the fact that the father-in-law of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is the distinguished Lord Justice Clerk in Scotland will be called in aid as an example of prejudice. There will inevitably be created the concept that judges are demonstrating an attitude or political loyalty in favour or against devolution and, by God, we are already in difficulty when we have Lord Kilbrandon on one side of the argument.
It is a dangerous principle to leave half the clause to judges and the other half to the discretion of the Secretary of State so that he can exercise in his supreme discretion what judges are not permitted to exercise in theirs. That division of


functions raises the most dangerous principles.
It is essential that we should understand that the Bill raises constitutional, judicial and ministerial schisms that will inevitably break apart this country. They will be played upon on purpose by those who wish this to happen and it will be impossible for those who do not want to see the break up of the United Kingdom to prevent the schism and the arguments being made along those lines. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Mr. John Smith: With his customary skill, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) deployed, in a fairly short time, arguments on a large number of the amendments that are grouped for discussion. Some were referred to obliquely in Committee when the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) managed to stray a little on one amendment and I was able to stray equally to reply to some of the points he made.
There have been many speeches in this debate and some of them have not been precisely to the point, as was evident when the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby argued that the European Convention on Human Rights should be incorporated directly into the Bill. He is very much a Bill of Rights man and wishes to see a larger function for the courts in our constitution. That is a perfectly respectable view. I disagree with it, but the hon. Gentleman puts it with cogency and force on every opportunity and that shone through some of his remarks.
The hon. Gentlemen rightly stressed that New Clause 4 is probably the most important of the clauses we are discussing. He and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) argued that if we were allowing a role for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in deciding questions of vires, we should take it wider and apply that principle to our international and European Community obligations as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is constantly worried about the role of the Judicial Committee, but it is a simple matter that vires issues should be decided by a court.

My hon. Friend must be aware that the Judicial Committee performed such a task for the Canadian constitution from 1867 to 1949. There is all the difference in the world between a court expressing an opinion on political matters, which I would deplore, and a court deciding question of vires. It is a simple proposition that the Judicial Committee should decide whether a proposed Bill falls within the powers conferred upon the Scottish Assembly by the Scotland Act. As was said earlier, the Judicial Committee performed such a role in relation to the Stormont Parliament.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: The Minister of State is raising an important matter of principle. How can it possibly be that the Committee could pronounce, for instance, on whether certain powers in respect of education or housing were or were not within the Act without it being accused of having involved itself in the political arena?

Mr. Smith: I think that it would be possible for it to do that. If a Bill to do with education sought to extend or contain powers not within the scope of the Scotland Bill, the matter would be referred to the Judicial Committee by the United Kingdom Government. The Committee would determine whether the Bill fell within such powers. For example, if there were a provision for university education in Scotland—as the Bill stands, the Assembly would have no powers to deal with such matters—that provision would be declared ultra vires, and that would be an end of the matter.
We are discussing the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that we should put the United Kingdom's international obligations before a domestic British court. The Government's view—this is why we make a distinction between vires matters of a domestic sort and international obligations—is that it would not be suitable or desirable to put these matters before a British court.
The United Kingdom Government will remain responsible for international obligations post-devolution. Therefore, the United Kingdom will have the responsibility of fulfilling whatever are the international obligations even in devolved areas. If there come to be European


Community obligations relating to education or health, for example, which I suppose is a possibility, these are matters for which the United Kingdom Government will remain responsible. Indeed, if they are to be taken to European or international courts, it will be the United Kingdom Government that is so taken. Therefore, it seemed appropriate that the United Kingdom Government should have the power of veto over any Bills coming forward from the Scottish Assembly that might possibly infringe the United Kingdom's commitment. That is because the United Kingdom will be answerable both to any other body—

Sir Frederic Bennett: rose—

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Smith: The United Kingdom will have to be answerable. It cannot escape its legal liability to conform to international obligations into which it has entered, or to whatever Community obligations it has undertaken.
I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees).

Mr. Peter Rees: I appreciate that the Minister of State is making a serious argument. No one would attempt to argue against his thesis that the Government will remain responsible for their international obligations. However, we are not concerned with that argument in dealing with the new clauses. There will inevitably be fine questions whether an Assembly measure does or does not infringe our international responsibilities, but those questions should surely be determined in the dispassionate atmosphere of a court of law rather than by an exercise of ministerial judgment, however elevated and however distinguished. Surely these high matters are essentially for the courts. They should surely be determined by the courts in the first instance, or by reference to the European Court. They are not matters for ministerial discretion or ministerial judgment.

Mr. Smith: I beg to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe that they are matters of ministerial judgment and for accountability via Ministers to this Parliament. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, international obligations are of many characters and of many different types. They are not all closely defined. They are not

all closely defined in legal terms. Some of them range from an international nod and a wink to a carefully defined treaty carrying particular obligations.

Sir David Renton: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the High Court in the Strand the impact of EEC obligations, laws and regulations upon our own law is being decided by the courts week after week. Those issues are not being decided by Ministers.

Mr. Smith: With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we are dealing with a different matter—namely, a Bill coming from the Scottish Assembly, not the impact of EEC regulations on a particular case before a domestic court, be it in England or in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a different matter.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire said that the Government had changed their mind about how to deal with vires questions. That is true. I do not apologise for it. It was a wise decision by the Government to change their mind on that matter. It seems, that listening to hon. Members in the House and to other opinions, it is a matter not for criticism but for such modified congratulation as the right hon. and learned Gentleman managed to confer upon us. Therefore, I think that we are basically right to leave vires questions to the Judicial Committee.
There is a distinction between international obligations and what might be called domestic issues—Bills dealing with education, health and so on—on which the Scottish Assembly might seek to stray beyond the bounds of its competence. We would be asking the Judicial Committee to make a determination on those matters when it might not be clear what our international obligations are. But our preference is that that should be a matter for the United Kingdom Government, who are answerable to the House of Commons.
Other matters have been raised—for example, whether the House itself should put matters before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to scrutinise Bills. We expect that he will seek the advice of Law Officers in any case where he is concerned about a vires


question and will form an opinion in the light of that advice. The Scottish Assembly will be advised by its own Law Officers on what is or is not within its powers. The number of occasions on which that is likely to arise is limited. That was the experience at Stormont.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The Minister of State has possibly misunderstood some of the arguments. He said that Ministers will take the opinion of the Law Officers. As far as I can see, there will be no method by which we could test whether the Minister in such matters has acted ultra vires. The Minister has ruled that out. He said that Ministers will seek the opinion of the Law Officers, but at no stage has he said that the Scottish Assembly and others must be subject to certain rules. The hon. Gentleman has not admitted that Ministers, in the exercise of their discretion, will be subject to any form of judicial test.

Mr. Smith: We are dealing with the vires of Scottish Assembly Bills, not the activities of United Kingdom Ministers. The United Kingdom Minister who exercises the discretion is accountable to the House of Commons. If the House felt that there was a vires question proper to be referred to the Judicial Committee and the Secretary of State did not act in that way, hon. Members have many ways of drawing the matter to his attention. The House of Commons is keen on drawing the attention of Ministers to many matters.
I am not sure that political debate and a majority voting on a vires question is always the best way to deal with such a matter. Ministers are subject to political pressure if it appears to the House that they are not doing what they should be doing.

Mr. Brittan: Will the Minister concede that he is being less than his usual fair self in putting the matter that way? There is no question of the House deciding a vires question under the new clause but only if its deciding whether a question should be referred to the Judicial Committee for judicial determination.

Mr. Smith: I thought that was what I was saying. If not, I apologise. I do not know whether I put it incorrectly or whether the hon. Gentleman did not

understand me correctly. I certainly was not suggesting that the House of Commons would decide the matter. It is clear from the terms of the amendment that it is a question whether a matter should be referred and who should refer it. I think it more desirable that a member of the Government rather than the House of Commons should refer the matter.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby asked whether there should be a specified time within which the Secretary of State should put forward a Bill for Royal Assent following a determination by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Indeed, he suggests in Amendment No. 14 that such a Bill must be put forward within 28 days. We believe such a specific provision to be unnecessary. If the Secretary of State deliberately delayed putting forward a Bill for Royal Assent after the Judicial Committee had made a determination on the matter or matters referred to it, he would be answerable to public opinion and to the House. We think that 28 days is a restrictive period. There might be simple practical circumstances which make it impossible—for example, because the Judicial Committee may not be able to arrange a meeting within the time stipulated. I do not accept that there is a need to put any particular time on this.
The important question contained in the amendments is whether international and Community obligations are to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This is a matter of judgment.

Mr. Fairbairn: I apologise for intervening, but this is an important matter. Under Clause 19 (1) (b), assuming the Secretary of State obtains his advice from the Lord Advocate—whose judgment I have always regarded as infallable—how are we or anyone else to test it when there is no provision that it should be tested?

Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State will be under a statutory duty which no doubt he will exercise properly.
We draw a distinction between the few cases that involve European and international obligations and other situations. The farmer raises a different problem because it is not always clear what our international obligations are. There are


difficulties in referring United Kingdom obligations to a domestic court. The European Court and the International Court of Justice are of a different character. If the hon and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) were in Government he would find many compelling reasons why it would not be wise to do this.

Mr. Stanbrook: If there is one court that cannot be described as a domestic court it is the Judicial Committee, which has been dealing with matters involving the Commonwealth. Even the House of Lords does not sit in the capacity of the highest court in the whole of this country. It sits in two capacities—as the highest court for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Smith: It is true that the Judicial Committee has in the past, and still has, a wide-ranging international role. But it is a diminishing role. In this case what would be tested would be a United Kingdom objection to a Scottish Assembly Bill. That would be regarded as a domestic matter. In that respect the Judicial Committee should be regarded as a domestic court.
It is a matter of judgment whether we should take it a stage further and refer additional matters to the Judicial Committee. It would be simpler but not wiser. We must keep this distinction between international and Commnunity obligations—which have a different character—and other matters.
We have had an interesting debate and I respect the cogency of the arguments. I believe that the Judicial Committee provison in the Bill is right. Vires questions of an ordinary kind should be referred to the Judicial Committee. It will certainly increase the role of the judiciary, but it will be a different role. I do not

believe that it will be an obtrusion of politics into the court because the court will have to reach decisions in a narrow category. This is within its tradition.

Whether a Bill falls within the Act will be a matter of construction. It would be unwise to embroil the Judicial Committee. For those reasons I advise the House to reject the new clause.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Surely the Minister understands that there are a number of his right hon. Friends who are, to say the least, not sympathetic towards the European Community. If there is a Secretary of State who is not sympathetic to the European Community, might he not decide not to point out to the House or to anybody else that a Bill going through the Scottish Assembly is not compatible with our obligations under the Treaty?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must allow that Ministers carry out their statutory functions and ministerial duties and do not allow any of these preconceptions to interfere with the obligations laid upon them by their office. That applies to the members of any Government. Irrespective of the political complexion of the Government, I am sure that the Minister concerned would carry out the statutory duty laid upon him under the Bill.
It is because we see a difference in character between international and European obligations and ordinary vires questions that we think it would be wise for the House to accept the Bill as it stands and not to accept the new Clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 242.

Division No. 111]
AYES
[10.46 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clegg, Walter


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cockroft, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brittan, Leon
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cope, John


Banks, Robert
Brooke, Peter
Costain, A. P.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brotherton, Michael
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dodsworth Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buck, Antony
Drayson, Burnaby


Biffen, John
Budgen, Nick
du Cann, RI Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Bulmer, Esmono
Dunlop, John


Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Durant, Tony


Body, Richard
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John




Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Farr, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, R.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Luce, Richard
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCusker, H.
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Macfarlane, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shepherd, Colin


Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Gorst, John
Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mates, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stainton, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanley, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hannam, John
Molyneaux, James
Stokes, John


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Stradling Thomas, J.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Tebbit, Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Hodgson, Robin
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holland, Philip
Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nott, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Hurd, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Richard (Workington)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wiggin, Jerry


James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst' d&amp;W' df'd)
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, G (E Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Younger, Hon George


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil


Andarson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cartwright, John
Dormand, J. D.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bates, Alf
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunnett, Jack


Bean, R. E.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Eadie, Alex


Beith, A. J.
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Concannon, Rt Hon John
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Boardman, H.
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cryer, Bob
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Ford, Ben


Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Buchanan, Richard
Davidson, Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)







Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McNamara, Kevin
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grocott, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stoddart, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin
Stott, Roger


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Molloy, William
Strang, Gavin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonman, Eric
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Swain, Thomas


Henderson, Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Defydd (Merioneth)


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike
Thompson, George


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Gordon
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O' Halloran, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Tomlinson, John


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Park, George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Janner, Greville
Parker, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parry, Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Ward, Michael


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Penhaligon, David
Watkins, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Perry, Ernest
Watt, Hamish


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Weetch, Ken


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles
Wellbeloved, James


Judd, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Welsh, Andrew


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
White, James (Pollok)


Kinnock, Neil
Robinson, Geoffrey
Whitehead, Phillip


Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn
Whitlock, William


Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lamond, James
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Litterick, Tom
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rose, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


MacCormick, Iain
Ryman, John
Woodall, Alec


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sandelson, Neville
Woof, Robert


McElhone, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sever, John



MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Ted Graham.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eleven o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned pursuant to Order [16th November].

Bill, as amended, to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

VALUE ADDED TAX ON SUPPLIES BY SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

11.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move,
That section 19(4) of the Finance Act 1972

shall be amended by inserting after the words 'Minister of the Crown' the words 'or of a Scottish Secretary'.
This is in a sense a paving resolution for Government Amendment No. 109, which will be considered by the House tomorrow. It concerns the liability of the Scottish Secretary for value added tax. If the Government amendment were not made later, the Scottish Administration would not be liable for VAT in the same way as a Minister of the Crown. I think it necessary to have the Scottish Secretary treated in the same respect as Ministers of the Crown in this matter, and I am sure that the House will think that that is desirable.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: When we first looked at this, it struck us that it was perhaps a rather premature motion, causing an adjustment in the Bill that would not strictly be necessary until a much later stage. We are still of the hope that the Bill will never be enacted, but against the possibility that it may ultimately be enacted, undoubtedly the amendment would be necessary.
Having gone into it in some detail, we have come to the conclusion that this is the best way to do it, bearing in mind the fact that we do not want the Bill. But if it is to be enacted, it would be right for the Scottish Secretary to be liable for VAT. On that basis we do not intend to oppose the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (GLASGOW)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: The object of this Adjournment debate is to call attention to the situation at the Minerva Street, Glasgow, office of the Department of Health and Social Security, which is within my constituency. It is an office which pays on a daily basis all the recipients of supplementary benefit in the Glasgow area who are deemed by the Department to have no fixed abode. I hope to say something later about the definition of "no fixed abode", but at the moment I am particularly concerned with a small number of these claimants who cause a great deal of nuisance to my constituents in Minerva Street, St. Vincent Crescent and part of Argyll Street.
The houses there form a fine collection of good Victorian architecture of which Glasgow has probably the best examples in the United Kingdom. Until about 10 years ago there was deterioration and neglect in the area. There was some extensive change of use allowed by the planning people, and some of the good old flats were made over to offices, while some of the larger flats were in multiple occupancy. In the last decade there has

been an attempt by the local residents to reinstate these buildings. New families have moved in, the back courts have been cleaned up and made most attractive, and many of the flats have been very extensively refurbished.
Into this area, which the local people are trying so hard to improve, with the very welcome help of Government grants, the Department decided to register for payment all the most difficult cases in the entire city. As far as I have been able to check no local organisations or people were consulted, yet the Department must have been aware that it was creating a potential problem. I am aware that London has two such specialist offices but I am not sure whether they predated the Minerva Street office or whether they all started at the same time. If the former, there is even less excuse for not making very sure of local conditions before embarking on closing the office. Perhaps my hon. Friend will clear this up now or write to me about it.
The big problem is caused by alcohol. The practice seems to be for those in the particular troublesome group who are paid first to go to the local post office, where incidentally they frequently make a nuisance of themselves, get their money, and go to the off-licence to buy cheap wine, or to wherever a particular brand of hair lacquer can be bought. They then return to the supplementary health office to meet their friends who are paid out later in the morning. The bottles are then passed around from hand to hand, quite openly—I have seen it done myself—in front of children or anyone else who may be about. Of course these people are ill and in need of special help and attention. What I find most worrying is that until someone, somewhere, some time, can work out a way of handling this distressing social condition, my constituents must apparently bear the whole of the problem for the entire Glasgow area.
But the open drinking is only the start. The general behaviour of these claimants is deplorable. When fully intoxicated they sometimes become abusive and lie in the "closes" across doorways in drunken sleep making it most unpleasant for the residents to go in and out of their homes. Worst and most unpleasant of all is the fact that whether from incontinence or whatever other reason they frequently urinate where they are, often right against


the very doors of my constituents' flats. Washing out these "closes" or the doorways is the disagreeable task which falls to some of my unfortunate electors. Of course, these incidents are seldom registered by the police, because by their very nature it is not easy actually to catch someeone when he or she is committing the offence.
I think that I should say something on behalf of my constituents, who have borne so much for so long. I have met them singly and in groups many times, the most recent being only about three weeks ago when about 30 gathered in a house to discuss the problem with me yet again. During all my correspondence with the Secretary of State, and the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, they have been incredibly patient, but more important they have been incredibly understanding about these people who have caused them such trouble and unpleasantness over the last few years. Many of them have even told me they sometimes felt a little ashamed of themselves for perhaps being lacking in charity, particularly in cold or wet weather. At the same time they feel that it is asking a lot of them to be expected to take the whole of the burden.
That is why I suggested in an early letter to the chairman of the Commission that this type of payment should be moved to the Pitt Street office of the Department, where there is little residential property and which is directly opposite the Strathclyde Police Headquarters. I am sad to say that the letter I got in reply from the chairman is one that I hope he wished he had never signed. I assume that he did not actually write it himself. I know the pressures on people in his position. It is physically not possible even to read all the letters one must sign. There was first a suggestion in this letter that the situation was not really as bad as I painted it and then the inconsistent and insulting suggestion that even these mild goings on would be offensive at Pitt Street.
The insult to my constituents was contained in the phrase
there are good class hotels and businesses nearby to that office and we would only be shifting the problem not easing it".
So we have an underplaying of the problem when it affects ordinary people but an overstatement, or perhaps no more

than the truth, when it affects the clientele of
good class hotels and businesses".
The people in Minerva Street have a much more responsible attitude. They do not want what is a real social problem ignored. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend, who is replying tonight, that their assessment of official policy now is, sadly, that no one is really concerned about the consequences of this unilateral decision if it can be nicely swept under the carpet or in this case literally right up to their very doorsteps.
I have already expressed my objection to this attitude to the Secretary of State, but I must get it on the record in the strongest possible terms. I get a bit tired of professional people suggesting developments in, for instance, an area such as Bermondsey or Kilburn which it would not even cross their minds to propose for Hampstead or Blackheath. That type of thinking results in the situation that I complain about this evening.
However, with specific reference to the problem to hand I should like to put a few points to the Minister which I appreciate he may not be able to answer tonight but which I hope his Department will take heed of in any future planning of its offices.
First, why was this office chosen? According to the people in Glasgow who are in daily and nightly contact with those who have no-fixed-abode problems, this office is wrongly sighted geographically. The bulk of the no-fixed-abode people tend to be in the centre-to-eastern area of the City. They have a very long walk, or an expensive bus ride, to reach Minerva Street.
Secondly, what is the Department's definition of "no fixed abode"? I have been told of men who have lived in the same hostel for 20, 30 or even 40 years with impeccable backgrounds, records and habits, but they are no-fixed-abode cases. It seems to me that an administrative convenience has been abused to the extent of causing great inconvenience to perfectly reasonable, stable people who either choose or need to live in hostel accommodation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State do not see the Department as just a machine to pay out the money set aside by this House for this specific


purpose but carrying no wider social responsibilities for the recipients.
That brings me to my third point. If the Minerva Street office is so special, what special training have the staff received? I am aware that a lot of money has been spent on the physical layout of the office, but I am concerned with the much more important software of the system, which is the staff who operate it. If Glasgow and London alone have problems of a different magnitude from Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle, were the prospective staffs all sent on special and specific training courses related to the work they would be doing in Minerva Street?
The last point that I shall have time to raise with my hon. Friend is the more general one of treatment for the alcoholics who are the cause of most of the problems I am concerned about tonight. I was pleased to be told by the Secretary of State that more beds were being provided at the Bishopbriggs reception centre and that links between this centre and Minerva Street were to be strengthened. Are the physical links also to be improved? I understand that men sent to Bishopbriggs have to find their own way there. Of those who are sent I wonder how many actually arrive. Could the Department not co-operate with the regional social work department and go back to the system that was used in the '30s, when there were many more people sleeping rough, of sending a bus round at about 10 o'clock at night to collect these unfortunate cases and take them somewhere indoors, however rough and ready? Finally, could my hon. Friend use the good offices of his Department, and a little of its money, to help the regional health or social work authorities to set up a badly needed detoxification unit in the Glasgow area?
I have tried to end my remarks on a constructive and helpful note for my hon. Friend's Department. I hope that he will respond with proposals which will be helpful to my constituents.

11.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Mr. Carmichael) for giving me the

opportunity to explain the Department's position in this matter.
The Department's policy, where numbers justify it, is to deal with single, unemployed claimants living in hostels and lodging houses at separate, specialist offices. There are at present three such offices. One of these is the office at 67 Minerva Street, Glasgow, known within the Department as Cranstonhill Area Office, and the other two are in London. Cranstonhill office was first set up in 1959, and it moved to its present location in April 1972. All of these offices deal with lodging houses irrespective of their location in the territory of another office. Claimants in Glasgow without addresses have also been handled at Cranstonhill office since March 1976. It has been common for such claimants to call at these offices, no doubt because they are used to them from their spells in hostels, and the position was formalised in Glasgow where the problem of single homelessness was much more concentrated than it was in London.
I should like to make it plain at the outset that I have considerable sympathy for the views expressed, and I can fully understand the feelings of those residents who live near to my Department's local office at 67 Minerva Street, Glasgow, particularly when they complain about the behaviour of some of the claimants who call there. I know that my hon. Friend has raised this matter earlier in meetings with my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Social Security, when he fully and clearly explained the difficulties that arise. I have read the letter that my right hon. Friend sent following their meeting on 14th December last year, and I know that he also is sympathetic and wants to take whatever steps are possible to effect improvements.
I intend now, therefore, to explain our general policy and to report on the measures that have been taken in Glasgow, largely as a result of the examination of our operational arrangements for which my right hon. Friend asked as a result of the meetings.
There were originally two main reasons for the creation of these specialist offices, the first being that the frequent movements of claimants from one lodging house to another strained the system by which their papers were transferred


between offices as they moved across boundaries. The result was that in many cases the time-lag involved and the general unreliability of statements about the date and place of last applications led to overlapping payments and sometimes fraud.
The second reason was that large numbers of these claimants were dirty in their personal habits and appearance, and many more alcoholics or meths drinkers. They could be drunk, abusive, unkempt and smelly, and not particular where they relieved themselves. Besides being objectionable to local residents, they were liable to distress other claimants, particularly women and children. The effect of their being dealt with by a number of offices spread these problems over a wide area and it was thought more reasonable to concentrate them in one spot where the nuisance could be contained or thereby more easily remedied and the abuses could be better controlled.
These considerations are important, but there are others to which we are very much alive, some of which have become evident as a result of experience in such offices. These fall into three main categories—the prevention of abuse, the containment and reduction of nuisance, and the furthering of the welfare of the claimants themselves—and these sometimes overlap. I have already referred to the difficulties of keeping track of those claimants who move frequently and how hard it is to obtain accurate statements of events—sometimes because the claimants are trying to pull the wool over our eyes; but often because they have difficulty themselves in remembering what has happened.
The concentration of such cases has meant that the offices dealing with them have gained from them specialist experience so that interviewing and verification standards have improved. The point about nuisance is more concerned with other claimants, who are no longer distressed or even put off altogether by the presence of some of these more unfortunate people in what I might call our ordinary offices. And we find that the claimants themselves generally prefer these arrangements because they are more at ease where they do not have to mix with others, who so obviously resent their presence, and where they do not

have to go to lengths to justify themselves.
The officers working in these offices are able to establish effective links with statutory and voluntary bodies in the welfare field and can concentrate on the resettlement of this special group of claimants and helping them into employment.
In general, staff in these offices have no specialist training, but a member of the staff at Cranstonhill went on a reception centre course last December. It is hoped that specialist training can be extended by means of such courses.
Those who oppose the concept of specialist offices fall generally into two groups. The first think that the claimants get a raw deal, and the others are concerned with the environmental problems. The main arguments of the first group are that specialist offices stigmatise their claimants by segregated treatment and compound their image of themselves as social failures so that the possibility of rehabilitation within the community is thereby reduced, and that claimants are involved in additional and unnecessary travelling through having to go to the specialist offices. The second group are concerned more about the concentration of vagrants, many of whom are drifters and/or drunkards, with consequential environmental pollution, and particularly the nusiance created for residents in the area of the office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove has on a number of occasions raised the question of the problems for residents living in the vicinity of the Cranstonhill office. It is, of course, understandable that people living near these specialist offices should take exception to the nusiances sometimes committed by some of those attending there and may be worried sometimes about their own safety and that of their children. I shall return to this point later.
The question whether such offices should exist and, if so, where they should be situated, is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but the Supplementary Benefits Commission has a proper interest and a role to play. It recently considered the subject, when it had the benefit not only of views expressed by regional controllers but also of a review


that had been undertaken by the Controller of the Scottish Region of the Cranstonhill Office and its operations. It concluded that the policy of having these special offices for claimants leading unsettled lives was the right one to follow and it supported the view that the three specialist offices now operating provide a better service for the people concerned than they would otherwise receive.
At the same time it had some relevant remarks to make about the need for special training for staff in the offices, the risk of temporarily homeless persons being pushed into the comunity of "dossers", so that clear guidance for staff is necessary to show who should be dealt with elsewhere and about the location of the offices. The Commission appreciated the difficulties that could arise in the neighbourhood of the offices and were concerned to have them situated close to these necessary facilities but as far as possible from residential areas. This factor is, of course, particularly relevant at Cranstonhill. I find myself in full agreement with the Commission.
Once the policy has been confirmed, the question of whether the offices are in the right place arises. It is not practicable, I am afraid, to obtain alternative accommodation in the foreseeable future for the special Glasgow office. A move from the present site to an office which could carry out the same functions at another site is impossible at present because of the constraints under which the Property Services Agency is now working and expects to work during the next few years. As I have said, we have concluded that the policy of having specialist offices is right, but even if we had decided that the appropriate measure was to disperse the work to other offices, this would have meant that extensions or alterations to accommodate extra staff and callers would have been necessary. The cost of such alterations would have competed with demands from my Department and others on the restricted budgets of the Property Services Agency, and again it is unlikely that any such work could have been undertaken within the foreseeable future. However, I am glad to say that it is proving possible to do quite a lot to reduce the problems that have arisen at the present office.
As I said earlier, Cranstonhill was created in October 1959 to deal with all

lodging house cases in Glasgow. Over the years there has been a decrease in the number of lodging houses. Some have closed because of economic factors, others for a variety of reasons, including slum clearance. There is, as a result, a shortage of accommodation for the single homeless—not, of course, a problem unique to Glasgow.
The office deals with 10 local authority hostels, including one for women, which have a bed space capacity of 1,703—60 for women—one privately owned lodging house for men with a bed capacity of 451, and one hostel for women, run by the Salvation Army, with a bed capacity of 146. In addition, there are three night shelters with an approximate capacity of 214. The office now has a load of about 1,700 persons who are regularly in receipt of supplementary benefit. The make-up of the load constantly changes as the claimants change address or go in and out of work. The figure of 1,700 was broken down into approximately 800 cases registered at the unemployment benefit office for work, 450 other persons in receipt of supplementary allowance—many of whom would have been temporarily incapacitated because of sickness—and 450 supplementary pension cases. In addition, approximately 280 people with no settled address would be paid.
As one might expect with such an office, it attracts large numbers of callers—proportionately many more than would an ordinary office of comparable size—and this is of course one of the main points that concerns my hon. Friend and his constituents.
As I said earlier, my hon. Friend has raised the question of the concern of the local residents on a number of occasions. I understand the subject has been put to my hon. Friend through the St. Vincent Crescent Community Association, representing residents of the nearby St. Vincents Crescent, who are concerned about the anti-social behaviour of some of the persons attending the office. The main reasons for complaint have been detailed by my hon. Friend—namely, that some of the claimants urinated in public and that they tend to gather in groups to consume drink. One of the factors in the problem was that the persons concerned were not always attending the office themselves but were merely accompanying claimants—perhaps in the hope of enjoying some of


the benefits of any ensuing payments. Such groups would hang around the vicinity of the office, often drinking in the meantime.
The Controller of the Scottish Region therefore reviewed operations at Cranstonhill and as a result efforts have been concentrated on measures which would reduce and control the caller traffic, and authority. As a first step, the Glasgow on liaison with the police and local Parks Department agreed to fence round a small landscaped area opposite the office where itinerants were gathering, and improved toilet facilities for men and women have now been provided. These measures reduce the nuisance to local residents.
To minimise numbers of claimants congregating at an early hour, the opening hours have been brought forward from the usual 9.30 a.m. to 9 a.m., and to mitigate any possible nuisance of queueing even with early opening, metal gates giving access to an enclosed yard beside the office have been opened at 8.30 a.m. to take claimants off the street. I understand that these two measures have much eased the situation at that time of day. Finally, in this context the police were approached with a request to patrol the general locality to discourage objectionable conduct, and some increased activity has resulted.
In the past, claimants without addresses, including those in night shelters, were required to call daily or weekly at the local office. The possibility of reducing callers by issuing authorisations for the unemployment benefit offices to make continuing payments in such cases has been examined. There are limits to how far we can go along this road, because of the dangers of fraud, but it has been proved possible to select a number of regular night-shelter users for payments by this procedure and thus reduce the number of callers. It has also been possible to effect a further reduction in callers by undertaking some reviews of cases which were undertaken in the offices by visits to lodging houses, some of which now have more suitable facilities.
An extensive analysis and review of organisation and staffing of the caller section of the office has been completed and measures to reduce the length of time that claimants are in the office have

been introduced. There are early indications of a marked improvement in average waiting times and this obviously has a bearing where non-claimants are waiting outside the office.
Currently, the Giro cheques issued to claimants at this office are normally encashable only at Sandyford post office, which is the nearest one to the office. Special arrangements about identification are operative here as a means of curtailing abuse. Discussions have been taking place with the Post Office so that these special procedures can be extended to a limited number of other offices. The hope is that, while causing no inconvenience to the claimants, this could have the effect of dispersing most of them from the Vincent Crescent district once payment had been issued. I am glad to say that, after considerable discussions, the Post Office at a meeting only last Friday agreed that a further four post offices situated in the city centre would be brought into the scheme. This should reduce considerably the numbers of claimants calling at Sandyford, and thus staying in the vicinity.
Another possibility being considered is the issue of vouchers to cover the provision of meals at local authority hostels for callers without an address. The availability of money to spend on alcohol rather than food is a major cause of the problem, and if we can achieve anything in this line it will bring benefit for the individual's health as well as minimising abuse. Discussions are taking place with Glasgow District Council and experiment arrangements are being considered. However, we have some way to go before this idea can reach fruition.
The resources devoted to interviewing with a view to resettlement of these claimants have been increased, with encouraging results so far. The intention is to create closer links with the Bishoprigg reception centre, and more beds have been made available there. It has been found that many of the men referred to the centre are severely undernourished and unfit in some way for normal work. The work programmes have therefore had to be modified for them. The officers who have been involved in this exercise have acquired a case load of 82 men who are or have been living in night shelters, and they have succeeded in persuading 44 of them to enter the centre.
The average length of stay there has been 29 days, and during this period the improvement in the physical condition of the men has been marked. A follow-up check has shown that, of the 25 who had by then been discharged, 14 had not reapplied for benefit, four had been resettled in local authority hostels, one had returned to his family home, while another had been placed in work with accommodation provided. I find this most encouraging, though obviously more work will be needed at a later date before we can evaluate what has been achieved.
I hope I have shown, first, why we have decided that this kind of specialist office should be retained, and secondly, that we are very concerned to minimise any misuse that may result, particularly any inconvenience to my hon. Friend's constituents. I am sorry that we cannot hold out hopes of relocating Granstonhill office in the near future, but we are doing

everything in our power to improve the situation there.
Some improvement has been achieved and we intend to do more. Any helpful suggestion that my hon. Friend or anyone else can make will be welcomed. I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend's suggestions tonight and I shall write to him about them. On the question of a detoxification unit, a reply may take a little longer because it raises wider issues of policy regarding alcoholism. There are a number of experimental units in various parts of the country. I shall discuss the matter with the appropriate officials and write to my hon. Friend on this point which is at the root of the problem of the type of people who are annoying his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.